What is more important, a healthy economy or...

[ddoubleez]

What is more important, a healthy economy or a health ecosystem? Explain and defend why?

[Juan.Camaney]

Both go hand in hand.

[ddoubleez]

Both go hand in hand.

Not too sure I agree, ecosystems were healthier without economies........

Again, please explain your statement....

Thanks!

[Juan.Camaney]

What is there to explain? We now have economies and they both go hand in hand now. The ecosyst might have been healthier before (although not always ie dinosaurs went dead) but now that there is an economy and green means green ($$$) so they both go hand in hand.

[ddoubleez]

What is there to explain? We now have economies and they both go hand in hand now. The ecosyst might have been healthier before (although not always ie dinosaurs went dead) but now that there is an economy and green means green ($$$) so they both go hand in hand.

Well, the health of an ecosystem dictates it's output for renewable resources. The speed in which you remove the resources effects the long term output of a land base. So I would argue the healthier economy actually diminishes the output of an ecosystem, therefore the preservation of an economy, would be the selection of the preservation of ecology first. Economies should take a back seat to ecology, I am assuming and arguing.

It is also understood, that the most prevalent, non-renewable resources have the greatest detriment to renewable resources. The long term, renewable resources, should logically take priority... Right?

[Juan.Camaney]

In a logical world, yes. We do have a lot of "green" programs trying to push through and leave something for the next gens, but its not enough. Roof top gardens, implementation of rehab projects as prerequisites before big construction begins, etc. Most people still believe that we aren't affecting the ecosystem too much, those people are in denial. I'm not saying we are causing "global warming" per se, I'm just saying it is obvious that we are hurting the world around us. The way I see it, the world is a living organism. Deserts is scar tissue, and rain forests are the healthy parts. You have mountains that are pimples, and you get the basic concept of my personification or similies to human body parts. Its no coincidence that so much of your body is water and so much of the earth is water. Humans insist on living in the scar tissue areas, and expanding them (concrete lined cities are essentially new deserts and generate a lot of heat). So in essence, we are earths parasites.

[ddoubleez]

In a logical world, yes. We do have a lot of "green" programs trying to push through and leave something for the next gens, but its not enough. Roof top gardens, implementation of rehab projects as prerequisites before big construction begins, etc. Most people still believe that we aren't affecting the ecosystem too much, those people are in denial. I'm not saying we are causing "global warming" per se, I'm just saying it is obvious that we are hurting the world around us. The way I see it, the world is a living organism. Deserts is scar tissue, and rain forests are the healthy parts. You have mountains that are pimples, and you get the basic concept of my personification or similies to human body parts. Its no coincidence that so much of your body is water and so much of the earth is water. Humans insist on living in the scar tissue areas, and expanding them (concrete lined cities are essentially new deserts and generate a lot of heat). So in essence, we are earths parasites.

Very well said.....

I like to point out to people that the middle east used to be forested and the land of milk and honey, as alot of literature indicates... It is a desert now, because that is where we started.

And yes, we do breed like bacteria, that is why some people are so afraid of the overshoot and colapse senerio, we are in now...

The UK reciently handed down a one child policy, fairly reciently..

[Krasch]

Very well said.....

I like to point out to people that the middle east used to be forested and the land of milk and honey, as alot of literature indicates... It is a desert now, because that is where we started.

And yes, we do breed like bacteria, that is why some people are so afraid of the overshoot and colapse senerio, we are in now...

The UK reciently handed down a one child policy, fairly reciently..

I would suggest that the last time the middle east was forested or realistically seen as anything approaching a land of milk and honey was many thousands of years ago, before recorded history.

Certainly in any case, it is well before human populations reached any kind of numbers that would have had any significant impact on the environment at large.

So any blame on the deforestation of the region is sure as heck not due to us.

Egypt itself used to be temperate as well, around 30,000 BC or earlier. Surely you're not going to imply that the few humans around there at the time managed to turn it into a desert.

You make some valid points, but you're stretching things beyond limits with this one.

[ddoubleez]

1) I would suggest that the last time the middle east was forested or realistically seen as anything approaching a land of milk and honey was many thousands of years ago, before recorded history.

2) Certainly in any case, it is well before human populations reached any kind of numbers that would have had any significant impact on the environment at large.

3) So any blame on the deforestation of the region is sure as heck not due to us.

4) Egypt itself used to be temperate as well, around 30,000 BC or earlier. Surely you're not going to imply that the few humans around there at the time managed to turn it into a desert.

You make some valid points, but you're stretching things beyond limits with this one.

1) Please read the epic of gilgamesh... Ask yourself why he if writing about the forests that they had not tamed... 6000 years into written history.... And about 4000 years ago.

2) No... The bronze age, led the people to denute the forests, then the following collapse of resources forced people to migrate or die.

3) Refer to one and two, and if this does not satisfy you, I will provide you with more... I get criticism for my long posts.

4) That would have predated the agricultural revolution, which predates human mass devastation, which would make me a fool to say we were shaping eco-systems on that scale when we were a stable population for 2 million years previous. Hunter gathers did little to impact the ecosystem, outside of the slash and burn they did to manipulate game.

[Krasch]

1) Please read the epic of gilgamesh... Ask yourself why he if writing about the forests that they had not tamed... 6000 years into written history.... And about 4000 years ago.

2) No... The bronze age, led the people to denute the forests, then the following collapse of resources forced people to migrate or die.

3) Refer to one and two, and if this does not satisfy you, I will provide you with more... I get criticism for my long posts.

4) That would have predated the agricultural revolution, which predates human mass devastation, which would make me a fool to say we were shaping eco-systems on that scale when we were a stable population for 2 million years previous. Hunter gathers did little to impact the ecosystem, outside of the slash and burn they did to manipulate game.

The major problem with your argument is this.

While bronze age man might have deFORESTED the Middle East (which is certainly arguable) when they cease to be hunter-gatherers, they actovely starting PLANTING crops for food instead of hunting which would seriously mitigate any damage they could do the environment at that level of technology.

said farming would certainly not be prone to creating deserts, especially not in only a few thousand years of time given the meager populations back then.

[ddoubleez]

The major problem with your argument is this.

1) While bronze age man might have deFORESTED the Middle East (which is certainly arguable) 2) when they cease to be hunter-gatherers, they actovely starting PLANTING crops for food instead of hunting which would seriously mitigate any damage they could do the environment at that level of technology.

3) said farming would certainly not be prone to creating deserts, especially not in only a few thousand years of time given the meager populations back then.

1) If it is arguable, then argue it....

Egypt, which has practically no trees, was trading with Byblos (on the Lebanese coast) for cedar for shipbuilding, temple construction, and furniture-making as early as 3000 BC. But perhaps the most famous documentation of the shortage of wood around the ancient Mediterranean is the Epic of Gilgamesh ... Stripped of sex and violence, the Gilgamesh epic is about deforestation. Gilgamesh and his companion go off to cut down a cedar forest, braving the wrath of the forest god Humbaba, who has been entrusted with forest conservation. It's interesting that Gilgamesh is cast as the hero, even though he has the typical logger mentality: cut it down, and never mind the consequences. The repercussions for Gilgamesh are severe: he loses his chance of immortality, for example. But the consequences for Sumeria were even worse. It's clear that the geography and climate of southern Mesopotamia would not provide the wood fuel to support a Bronze Age civilization that worked metal, built large cities, and constructed canals and ceremonial centers that used wood, plaster, and bricks. Most timber would have to be imported from the surrounding mountains, and deforestation there, in a climate that receives occasional torrential storms, would have led to severe erosion and run-off. The loss of Gilgamesh's immortality may be a literary reflection of the realization that Sumeria could not be sustained.
Theodore Wertime suggested that massive deforestation of the eastern Mediterranean began about 1200 BC, for construction, lime kilning, and ore smelting. Probably it began earlier in the drier regions further east. King Hammurabi's laws (around 1750 BC) carried the death penalty for unauthorized felling of trees in Mesopotamia. The problem may have been even worse in intensive metal-working regions like Anatolia. Metal smelting and forging had been going on in Anatolia for at least 3000 years by 1200 BC.

2) Agriculture is a far more detrimental than hunting.. Get familiar with soil erosion and slash and burning.. Slash and burn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_and_burn) Agriculture is also the key to the population explosions that lead to more destruction... If you are bound to your landbase to provide you with food and you have to move around alot, you have far fewer children.

3) Again, agriculture is far worse for the environment than hunting game.
Erosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion)

If I could suggest a good read: Dirt : David R. Montgomery (http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10599.php)

[Krasch]

1) If it is arguable, then argue it....
We're not going to agree in the end, sp I won't waste either of our time.

I've got quite enough reading to do with the two courses I'm taking at the moment.

Although I will point out that,
Egypt, which has practically no trees, was trading with Byblos (on the Lebanese coast) for cedar for shipbuilding, temple construction, and furniture-making as early as 3000 BC. But perhaps the most famous documentation of the shortage of wood around the ancient Mediterranean is the Epic of Gilgamesh ... Stripped of sex and violence, the Gilgamesh epic is about deforestation. Gilgamesh and his companion go off to cut down a cedar forest, braving the wrath of the forest god Humbaba, who has been entrusted with forest conservation. It's interesting that Gilgamesh is cast as the hero, even though he has the typical logger mentality: cut it down, and never mind the consequences. The repercussions for Gilgamesh are severe: he loses his chance of immortality, for example. But the consequences for Sumeria were even worse. It's clear that the geography and climate of southern Mesopotamia would not provide the wood fuel to support a Bronze Age civilization that worked metal, built large cities, and constructed canals and ceremonial centers that used wood, plaster, and bricks. Most timber would have to be imported from the surrounding mountains, and deforestation there, in a climate that receives occasional torrential storms, would have led to severe erosion and run-off. The loss of Gilgamesh's immortality may be a literary reflection of the realization that Sumeria could not be sustained.
Theodore Wertime suggested that massive deforestation of the eastern Mediterranean began about 1200 BC, for construction, lime kilning, and ore smelting. Probably it began earlier in the drier regions further east. King Hammurabi's laws (around 1750 BC) carried the death penalty for unauthorized felling of trees in Mesopotamia. The problem may have been even worse in intensive metal-working regions like Anatolia. Metal smelting and forging had been going on in Anatolia for at least 3000 years by 1200 BC.
your own quote would seem to indicate the areas themselves were either already deserts or very nearly so in any case before humans were any major factor. Remember that most all Egyptians were situated in the Nile Valley not in the other areas and that the Sahara (the desert in question) is estimated at roughly 3 MILLION years, long before anything particularly human existed.

So it would appear man successfully made Egypt a desert retroactively. You're right it seems, and doing it retroactively is even more impressive a feat.

[Juan.Camaney]

The arguments goes in circles yet again. Is a few hundred or thousand years of man existing somewhere responsible for creating deserts or was it coincidence that it was already becoming a desert and man just moved in?

[Krasch]

The arguments goes in circles yet again. Is a few hundred or thousand years of man existing somewhere responsible for creating deserts or was it coincidence that it was already becoming a desert and man just moved in?

Ummmm, Regis? I'm going to go with b) coincidence, final answer.

And I won't even begin to go into the issue that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a work of FICTION, a story based around some nugget of facts (much like the Bible no doubt) without any doubt heavily embellished by verbal telling over generations long before it was ever actually written down, and is a work that cannot nor should be taken as anything close to fact.

Let us not forget that not only were populations much smaller and more sparse, life expectancies much shorter, but technology far less advanced. It's not like the Mesopotamians were driving around in SUV's killing the environment.

[Juan.Camaney]

We're not talking about global warming here, krash, but I do believe that slash and burn was responsible for much of the deforestation here in the US. It was an old saying that a squirrel could go from the east coast all the way to the mississippi without touching the ground. Water rationing in places like Las Vegas because they sold most of the rights to CA for too long is evidence that humans, for some reason or another, like to go where there is little water! Its not so far fetched! Also have to disagree on the bible being fiction, but that's another topic!

[Krasch]

Oh I'm aware we're not talking about global warming, they weren't building skyscrapers out of wood either back then.

Both Egypt and Israel are right on the Mediterranean Sea, if they're deserts with that much water next door, it's because they already were or virtually so. Man just wouldn't have had enough of an impact 5 millenia ago let alone millions of years ago.

Incidentally, as to the Bible, there is no doubt Jesus existed. And no doubt SOMETHING happened to make people claim he performed miracles, but even you must concede that taking the Bible as literal fact is stretching things, even the New Testament which a) isn't even consistent between the various books, and b) was written down decades after the events. We all know from the old telephone game that a verbal story will change somewhat from generation to generation and the Bible is no doubt no different from any other book based on factual people and events that has had a decent history of being spread orally before being written down. That doesn't in any way obviate the good message the Bible teaches, but calling it fact is at best hyperbole.

[Juan.Camaney]

Like I said bro, different topic. Yeah, I know the bible wasn't written in english so there has to be some loss in translation and some people probably added stuff to benefit here and there.

[Krasch]

Like I said bro, different topic. Yeah, I know the bible wasn't written in english so there has to be some loss in translation and some people probably added stuff to benefit here and there.

You aren't kidding. And that's the original versions of the Bible.

By the time you get to the King James version, it itself is derivative of several earlier works including works by Wycliffe and Tyndale, and THEY were based on yet earlier translations.

Convoluted to say the least, but anyway let's get back to the original program...

[ddoubleez]

We're not going to agree in the end, sp I won't waste either of our time.

I've got quite enough reading to do with the two courses I'm taking at the moment.

Although I will point out that,

your own quote would seem to indicate the areas themselves were either already deserts or very nearly so in any case before humans were any major factor. Remember that most all Egyptians were situated in the Nile Valley not in the other areas and that the Sahara (the desert in question) is estimated at roughly 3 MILLION years, long before anything particularly human existed.

So it would appear man successfully made Egypt a desert retroactively. You're right it seems, and doing it retroactively is even more impressive a feat.


Please understand that the quote made no claim that the deforestation started 3000 b.c. It was well underway in MANY areas of the middle east due to the preceding copper and other ages that were all fueled by burning trees. Farm land had been sprawling and denuding the land for thousands of years. The areas that were exporting wood, had not been settled as long, The inhabitance were people driven to settle else where, partly due to a number of resources including wood being over exploited.

It needs to be understood that there was a significant population in europe that had started deforestation there 4000 years before that. Europe and the middle east had experienced numerous population crashes due to deforestation before 2500 bc. To agrue this is to argue with history, which seems to be a far greater waste of time. But I am up for it if you would like to continue. We can look into the new world evidence for the maya doing the same thing and experiencing the same population crashes. Isreal had experienced deforestation and subsequent population crashes 7000 bc.

Also, the sahara is very old, but it was not significant in size until after the agricultural revolution. Monsoons played a large part in this, slash and burn agriculture removed the ground cover that would held top soil in place, please refer to erosion again. I am not telling you that there is only one reason for deforestation, but humans have been a significant factor for up to 11000 years.

It also needs to be understood that we did not move into the middle east, as stated by another member that is where we started. And if we did not start there, would it make since to move to a place that is turning to a desert?

Fact:

40,000 BC : Argiculture and Husbandry Develops


About 40,000 years ago, as increasing technology led to the human superpredator, humanity began altering earth’s environment. They ascended to the top of the food chain, killing off large mammals that had no or few natural predators, and they killed competing predators, as well as all other digestible animals. The most significant early use of technology to begin creating the human-dominated ecosystem was probably the introduction of fire as a vegetation-clearing tool. When Europeans first came to the New World during the Columbian era, the natives of North America’s eastern woodlands used fire annually to clear the forest of undergrowth, creating an environment that was conducive to foraging deer and other preferable animals. There is tantalizing evidence that the Great Plains of North America may have been the world’s largest pasture, an environment created by millennia of Indians burning the plains, to create an environment that encouraged bison, elk, and deer to flourish. Deforestation accompanied the earliest agriculture. Earth’s most deforested places are where “civilization” first appeared on a large scale. Forest ecosystems are the greatest soil makers, and wiping out forests has also wiped out soils, not only by erosion. Deforestation and irrigation had long-term harmful effects, generally through soil destruction and salination. Rivers that ran clearly before the domestication revolution became clouded with silt, which was soil washed away downstream from deforested land. By 2100 BC, Ur had abandoned wheat cultivation due to soil salinity, and wheat only amounted to 2% of Sumerian crops. The people of the Nile river valley successfully engaged in agriculture for thousands of years, but largely because silt from upstream deforestation fertilized the land in the annual flood.

[Krasch]

Please understand that the quote made no claim that the deforestation started 3000 b.c. It was well underway in MANY areas of the middle east due to the preceding copper and other ages that were all fueled by burning trees. Farm land had been sprawling and denuding the land for thousands of years. The areas that were exporting wood, had not been settled as long, The inhabitance were people driven to settle else where, partly due to a number of resources including wood being over exploited.

It needs to be understood that there was a significant population in europe that had started deforestation there 4000 years before that. Europe and the middle east had experienced numerous population crashes due to deforestation before 2500 bc. To agrue this is to argue with history, which seems to be a far greater waste of time. But I am up for it if you would like to continue. We can look into the new world evidence for the maya doing the same thing and experiencing the same population crashes. Isreal had experienced deforestation and subsequent population crashes 7000 bc.

Also, the sahara is very old, but it was not significant in size until after the agricultural revolution. Monsoons played a large part in this, slash and burn agriculture removed the ground cover that would held top soil in place, please refer to erosion again. I am not telling you that there is only one reason for deforestation, but humans have been a significant factor for up to 11000 years.

It also needs to be understood that we did not move into the middle east, as stated by another member that is where we started. And if we did not start there, would it make since to move to a place that is turning to a desert?



Actually the oldest human remains are in Africa not the Middle East, specifically Ethiopia. We didn't start in the Middle East.

You'd be assuming that primitive humans of that time actually knew and understood that they were moving into areas that were becoming deserts. That is a HUGE assumption, and doubtful considering that most meteorological events at the time were attributed to gods being pissed off and such.

You blame humans as the major cause, but estimates place the worldwide population as stable at only about 1 million total up to the creation of argriculture. That's worldwide including those already in Europe, Asia, Australia, and the New World (who were here by about 30,000 BC or so). Not that many people considering they were using crude stone tools for the first several thousand years, and soft coppoer tools after that under the Bronze Age.

Also consider: "Generalised agriculture apparently first arose in the Fertile Crescent because of many factors. The Mediterranean climate has a long dry season with a short period of rain, which made it suitable for small plants with large seeds, like wheat and barley. These were the most suitable for domestication because of the ease of harvest and storage and the wide availability. In addition, the domesticated plants had especially high protein content. The Fertile Crescent had a large area of varied geographical settings and altitudes. The variety given made agriculture more profitable for former hunter-gatherers. Other areas with a similar climate were less suitable for agriculture because of the lack of geographic variation within the region and the lack of availability of plants for domestication."

Gee, long dry seasons with short periods of rain. Sounds like the place was pretty arid in the first place and didn't have that many trees to begin with, what with the predominance of "small plants...such as wheat and barley"

Face facts deez, man may have helped some, but those areas were hardly lush forests and well into the process of becoming deserts before man ever entered the equation. Those stone age people didn't kill the horse, they just beat on it while it was taking its last breath.

[ddoubleez]

1) Actually the oldest human remains are in Africa not the Middle East, specifically Ethiopia. We didn't start in the Middle East.

2) You'd be assuming that primitive humans of that time actually knew and understood that they were moving into areas that were becoming deserts. That is a HUGE assumption, and doubtful considering that most meteorological events at the time were attributed to gods being pissed off and such.

3) You blame humans as the major cause, but estimates place the worldwide population as stable at only about 1 million total up to the creation of argriculture. That's worldwide including those already in Europe, Asia, Australia, and the New World (who were here by about 30,000 BC or so). Not that many people considering they were using crude stone tools for the first several thousand years, and soft coppoer tools after that under the Bronze Age.

4) 4.1)) Also consider: "Generalised agriculture apparently first arose in the Fertile Crescent because of many factors. 4.2)The Mediterranean climate has a long dry season with a short period of rain, 4.3) which made it suitable for small plants with large seeds, like wheat and barley. These were the most suitable for domestication because of the ease of harvest and storage and the wide availability. In addition, the domesticated plants had especially high protein content. The Fertile Crescent had a large area of varied geographical settings and altitudes. The variety given made agriculture more profitable for former hunter-gatherers. 4.4) Other areas with a similar climate were less suitable for agriculture because of the lack of geographic variation within the region 4.5)and the lack of availability of plants for domestication."

Gee, long dry seasons with short periods of rain. Sounds like the place was pretty arid in the first place and didn't have that many trees to begin with, what with the predominance of "small plants...such as wheat and barley"

5) Face facts deez, man may have helped some, but those areas were hardly lush forests and well into the process of becoming deserts before man ever entered the equation. Those stone age people didn't kill the horse, they just beat on it while it was taking its last breath.

1) You are correct up to 7 million years ago, our predecessors did live in africa, probably much like chimps do now, the move was made about 90 to 100000 years ago. We are an ape that originates in north africa and probably left due to glacier action and/or other climate events. I do not argue this. BUT CIVILIZATION started in the middle east and culture in the Mediterranean, for simplification and the fact we were dramatically different animals there at that time, it is acceptable to say we started in the middle east.

2) You are trying to tell us that you think any creature leaves a viable area for a harsher one? Animals move from areas that can not handle the population of the area. Anthropologists know what I am telling you, so no not an assumption at all, let alone a huge one.

3) I am not arguing the stability of hunter/gatherers, in fact you can go to my population thread and see this. What you neglect to include in your arugment was that the 1 million became 3 in 1000 years, and the the 3 million became 5 million in the next 1000 years and 7 in the next... That is 7 million @ 7000 bc.... Oh and 5000 bc it was twice that.... Members argued me on this too when I stated that food was the reason for the growth. And as far as the North American indigenous populations go, it does not take more than a flame to level a forest, but if you need to know, the myans population crashed due, in part, to the amount of deforestation from stone axes by 2500 bc, I do believe. I so I do not blame humans, it is just a fact that I am stating.

4.1) I have numerous points to argue here. The first is the greatest motivation for the move from hunter/gatherer lifestyle to sedentary lifestyle was STARVATION. Agriculture is a much harder lifestyle, and the growth of population from rudimentary agriculture caused a need for more developed and sedentary agriculture.

4.2) When? Monsoons were common in 8000 bc. A lake luleh in israel shows that 75% of pollen around 10000 bc was from trees...

Take a minute to skim this: Natufian culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture)


4.3) It should be understood that smaller plants do not do better with less rainfall. A tree can go years without rainfall, because the roots can reach, in some cases, over 50 feet down looking for water. Corn needs to be watered or even flooded numerous times in the growing season. Forests keep their smaller plants watered by perspiring this water that is deep underground.

4.4) Geographic variation has nothing to do with the ease or viability of agriculture for a region. I would say that the plans of north america are far from 'geographically diverse', so please explain this further.

4.5) We migrated, it would be understood that we took cereal seeds with us for cultivation.

5) Fact is that agriculture enables and forces man to spread and migrate. Agriculture causes erosion. Agriculture removes forests. This causes erosion. Erosion causes agriculture to yield less, on more land, which causes us to move, and remove more forest.

Lastly, I could completely drop the aspect of the argument that has to do with forests in the area and point out that you are telling me that there were wild cereals in the area that could support all these people, and there are not now. Erosion is the cause of this. Agriculture causes erosion, erosion leads to desertification.

[Krasch]

Agriculture causes erosion? You may want to re-type that one.

It can certainly CONTRIBUTE to it, but to say it CAUSES it is sheer hyperbole, ignoring other important factors like climate and the weather. Wind and water will certain help erosion along, as can plants themselves via the root structure breaking up what would be solid compacted ground.

And as I pointed out before the climate undoubtedly had far more impact on the desertification of the Middle East than anything man did in that era.

As for "2) You are trying to tell us that you think any creature leaves a viable area for a harsher one? Animals move from areas that can not handle the population of the area. Anthropologists know what I am telling you, so no not an assumption at all, let alone a huge one.", who's to say they didn't accidentally move to a harsher clime?

Surely you've done stuff yourself that seemed like a good idea at the time but afterward turned out to be a bad idea. It could easily have seemed like a good idea to move there, when it actually was not. Hell it still happens today, like the dimbulbs who thought building a city below sea level on a coast prone to having hurricanes run through the area every year was actually a bright move. New Orleans may be a beautiful city, but a smart place to have built one? Not likely.

Didn't stop people from doing it though.

[gen. cutter]

When the pollution levels now result in 50% of the general population getting some form of cancer, a disease almost unknown 100 years ago, I think it fair to say that a healthy ecosystem is more important to the people then just about anything. Again; life is worth more then profits.

However, a large percentage of the ruling class has agreed that planet Earth should be DE-populated to a more sustainable number; around 500 million. Its fair to conclude that the 'powers that be' have no intention of cleaning up the ecosystem, in favor of economics; unless they can devise some sort of monetary scam which they will benefit from. Can you say: Carbon Trade?

[Krasch]

When the pollution levels now result in 50% of the general population getting some form of cancer, a disease almost unknown 100 years ago, I think it fair to say that a healthy ecosystem is more important to the people then just about anything. Again; life is worth more then profits.

However, a large percentage of the ruling class has agreed that planet Earth should be DE-populated to a more sustainable number; around 500 million. Its fair to conclude that the 'powers that be' have no intention of cleaning up the ecosystem, in favor of economics; unless they can devise some sort of monetary scam which they will benefit from. Can you say: Carbon Trade?

Might you have some evidence of this? Sounds more than a little paranoid otherwise...

[Juan.Camaney]

When the pollution levels now result in 50% of the general population getting some form of cancer, a disease almost unknown 100 years ago, I think it fair to say that a healthy ecosystem is more important to the people then just about anything. Again; life is worth more then profits.
Although somewhat true, you also have to realize that there was no testing on materials used back in the day. Stuff like asbestos was the shit back in the day, until they realized what it had. Also, the treatment for cancer now a days was not available back when this disease was unknown...hard to tell what people were dying of, too. In my home town in mexico, near the mining town, people were inexplicably dying off as a result of drinking well water contaminated with lead in the soil. They attributed it to "miners disease" or "el mal del campo" (field disease).

[Krasch]

Although somewhat true, you also have to realize that there was no testing on materials used back in the day. Stuff like asbestos was the shit back in the day, until they realized what it had. Also, the treatment for cancer now a days was not available back when this disease was unknown...hard to tell what people were dying of, too. In my home town in mexico, near the mining town, people were inexplicably dying off as a result of drinking well water contaminated with lead in the soil. They attributed it to "miners disease" or "el mal del campo" (field disease).

True that. My dad is currently dying of cancer most likely obtained from having black lung as a result of working in the coal mines when he first came to Canada back in the late 40's. He just got diagnosed last winter.

People were exposed to all sorts of things they didn't know were bad for them, or at least certainly didn't know the extent of the problem.