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]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ddoubleez

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]

Originally Posted by Krasch

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]

Originally Posted by ddoubleez

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]

Originally Posted by Krasch

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 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

If I could suggest a good read: Dirt : David R. Montgomery

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by ddoubleez

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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!