World Affairs

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

I cannot believe you just wrote that: there is today no possible argument for war "being here to stay" or, worse, making it profitable. You are aiming for a society in which ten percent of the adult population ends up as connons and 90% as cannonfodder! What I said was that violence cannot be erradicated because we are predators , ever since we climbed down from the trees.

War is not inevitable, especially on a planet where distances and borders are already meaningless and mostly fictional. My guestimate would be that about 75-85% of today's political deliniations of nations are pure inventions of political deals or unwarranted conflicts. Transportation and communication, as they are evolving, should really hasten the demise of this idiotic politial fences. If mankind finally comes to its senses, the only possible borders would be defined by shorelines; and even those do not mean much, as several island nations show us already. War can only continue to exist if nations exist - get rid of that antiquated concept, and all you have left are local skirmishes fueled by greed. And if, in the next few hundred years, the economic bases of the continents can be reasonably aligned, you would not even have much cause for that. Soldiers cannot fight on an empty stomach, and even less so if they are too well fed to move too far from the remote or the keyboard.

As I said befoe, if we do not get our economic and environmental houses into order within the next century, there will be little to fight over, and far too few humans left to put up a fight in the first place.quote>

Which means war is not profitable for a large group of people but only for a select few rich people. The last war which was profitable for the majority of the human race ended in 1945. Yeah thats right, here I said it. It was a tragedy for those involved, yes, but one cannot deny the huge leaps forward we made after that, all because of the war. We put a man on the moon with technology first used to terrorize London. We established the EU and the UN, two political bodies previously unheard of. The war dealt a killing blow to conservatism and other forms of political extremism in Europe and large parts around the world. In other words, the whole world benefited in the end. Progress demands sacrifice. 

And no, war doesnt need nations to exist. It only needs people. People will always find a reason to kill their neighbor. Terrorism is waging war as well, and terrorists operate outside the boundaries of a country. War will only be obsolete when everyone thinks the same on a political level, there is no shortage of any kind of resource, religion is completely gone and there are no longer such things as pride. Since that will not happen as long as we are human, war will be inevitable. 

Besides that, modern technology will not yet erase countries from the map or borders. We still have things like religion that divides us, and cultural history and language that unites groups of people and excludes others. So you keep having nations. Besides that, you dont want a united world ruled by one government. Not only would a large group of people never accept it (and likely wage more war over it) it would also be pretty much impossible to govern such a world. No, countries are there because they make controlling humanity easier. 

@Nonny Moose. You have quite a pessimistic view on humanities chance of survival. Yet you forget our own ability to adapt to any kind of situation. Crops will no longer be harvestable so we dont have food? Nonsense, we just build greenhouse flats and produce our crops there. We dont need the outside world for that. Floodings or other kinds things that would make the air unbreathable. We build large ecodomes or underground shelter complexes with sufficient air filters to make the air breathable again. Short from the entire world flooding like in Waterworld (which is quite impossible since there is not enough water on the entire planet to flood like that or a super Ice age which covers the entire world (which takes thousands of years to happen) we can pretty much survive in any sort of environment. Especially when our survival depends on it. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, here we go again.  This thread is one of the new ones, and it has the page bump problem.  *sigh*

@Lexus:  All your statements depend on having the time and the will to do all these things.  A general crop failure will put the world in such dire straights that such things are unlikely to happen, except for a small group.  Such a group would be unable to do anything for the hungry masses, so they need to be isolated to be safe.  Greenhouses are not the answer unless you have an unlimited supply of appropriate chemicals to support the operation, which should be hydroponic. 

As for your fancy arcologies, how will you choose who is eligible to enter them?  You can't house everybody, and so now you must choose who lives.  Good luck with that, especially if the other side is armed, as it will inevitably be.  I suggest you view the movie "When Worlds Collide".  Hokey, but it has a point, several points, in fact.  I can't imagine a group of people well enough intentioned and coordinated to do that.

So now, you have the problem of your gene pool.  How will you prevent all the nastienesses of in-breeding in your reduced population?  You had better have lots of frozen resources or you will be in trouble down the road.  How will you do that?

Stop dreaming.  If there was a world wide catastrophe, few, if any would survive more than a century or two.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

@Lexus:  All your statements depend on having the time and the will to do all these things.  A general crop failure will put the world in such dire straights that such things are unlikely to happen, except for a small group.  Such a group would be unable to do anything for the hungry masses, so they need to be isolated to be safe.  Greenhouses are not the answer unless you have an unlimited supply of appropriate chemicals to support the operation, which should be hydroponic.  

As for your fancy arcologies, how will you choose who is eligible to enter them?  You can't house everybody, and so now you must choose who lives.  Good luck with that, especially if the other side is armed, as it will inevitably be.  I suggest you view the movie "When Worlds Collide".  Hokey, but it has a point, several points, in fact.  I can't imagine a group of people well enough intentioned and coordinated to do that.

So now, you have the problem of your gene pool.  How will you prevent all the nastienesses of in-breeding in your reduced population?  You had better have lots of frozen resources or you will be in trouble down the road.  How will you do that?

Stop dreaming.  If there was a world wide catastrophe, few, if any would survive more than a century or two.

quote>

I prefer not to take points from Hollywood. They tend to over exaggerate and portray people not as they are but how it best suits their movie and atmosphere they want to create. Hollywood hardly ever shows how humans truly are, only how humans are in the heads of the directors and scriptwriters. 

Also, especially when we get into problems we get that extra drive to do what needs to be done. It has always been like that. If our survival depends on it, we suddenly unite and do what needs to be done. Also, what necessary chemicals for greenhouses? All you need is some good soil, water, electricity and the right kinds of plants. Granted, grain and mais are less likely to be produced but there is still plenty of other food sources which can be created in greenhouses. 

As for domed structures of underground bunkers, we can make those as big as we need to, especially when our survival once again depends on it. Inbreeding will be the least of all the problems. If a few million people survive it will be enough to rebuild the entire human race without inbreeding problems. If you house a few hundred to a thousand people in such a bunker inbreeding wont be a real problem as well for a long time. As for housing people? There was this plan to make a dome around the central business district of Austin Texas. From a engineering point of view it was possible. So Im gonna assume that we can pretty much build a domes over pretty much every major population center. Maybe we need to revise large parts of the original infrastructure and rebuild large parts of the cities to be more space effective and perhaps we also need to start learning to live in smaller spaces, but it should be possible. 

Seriously, as long as its not some huge meteor crashing on earth or something other so big, sudden and destructive, the human race will always find a way to survive. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@Lexus:  Yes, I know Hollywood exaggerates, but they were postulating an ELE.  I don't think the director misread the character of man.  A large cooperative group failed to face up that they couldn't all be saved and turned into a mob at the end.  Man is not a noble beast who pulls up his socks in an emergency.  We are much more likely to sit in our puddle of excrement and whine about it.

You may think this is pessimistic, but take a look at the disbelief of the European Jews in the 1930's.  Many of them sat still when they should have been running like hell.  That is how the Third Reich managed to corral so many.  They just sat still.  Jews have been harassed for thousands of years before that, and they just didn't believe it could happen (again).

Notwithstanding any rationalizations on your part, I prefer to face the very real possibility that there could be an ELE anytime in the next century caused by any number of things, least likely an NEO.  Our civilization is top-heavy, and the old Malthusian Theory of population adjustment has been trumped by medical science.  We are unlikely to have a population devastating plague but we mustn't forget famine.  A great volkewanderung, or mass displacement of people is possible, however.  We, in our first world, have too much, consume too much, and are a natural target for the masses of the third world (which now, to a great extent contains the residue of the destroyed second world of the Soviet system).  With modern means of travel, we could be overwhelmed by such a mass movement, especially in Europe which really has not ocean barriers to this kind of event.  You need only look at the Mongols and the Huns to see what could happen as history recycles.

All your fine technological solutions will go down the drain in the face of a possible people flood and it won't take much of a food shortage to start this kind of thing up.  There is also a possibility of water shortage.  The glaciers and the ice sheets in the mountains around the world are retreating.  This reduces the flow in some of the great rivers such as the Ganges.  Try paying more attention to the small details, and you will find we are heading for some kind of cusp.  There are too many people for the earth to support, and the third world keeps popping them out.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

 You may think this is pessimistic, but take a look at the disbelief of the European Jews in the 1930's.  Many of them sat still when they should have been running like hell.  That is how the Third Reich managed to corral so many.  They just sat still.  Jews have been harassed for thousands of years before that, and they just didn't believe it could happen (again).quote>

A completely different scenario. Here we have a group of people telling the other group of people they are going on a vacation camp. It is within the human nature to believe such nonsense because its easier to accept that they are going to get gassed by those same people. However, when the water starts to rise there is simply no denying. No easy way out for ourselves so we have no other choice then to do something about it at all costs. At some point there is going to be some guy that says 'hey people, look, if we dont do anything we will all die, so heres the plan, were gonna do [insert solution] and survive.'

 

Notwithstanding any rationalizations on your part, I prefer to face the very real possibility that there could be an ELE anytime in the next century caused by any number of things, least likely an NEO.  Our civilization is top-heavy, and the old Malthusian Theory of population adjustment has been trumped by medical science.  We are unlikely to have a population devastating plague but we mustn't forget famine.  A great volkewanderung, or mass displacement of people is possible, however.  We, in our first world, have too much, consume too much, and are a natural target for the masses of the third world (which now, to a great extent contains the residue of the destroyed second world of the Soviet system).  With modern means of travel, we could be overwhelmed by such a mass movement, especially in Europe which really has not ocean barriers to this kind of event.  You need only look at the Mongols and the Huns to see what could happen as history recycles.

All your fine technological solutions will go down the drain in the face of a possible people flood and it won't take much of a food shortage to start this kind of thing up.  There is also a possibility of water shortage.  The glaciers and the ice sheets in the mountains around the world are retreating.  This reduces the flow in some of the great rivers such as the Ganges.  Try paying more attention to the small details, and you will find we are heading for some kind of cusp.  There are too many people for the earth to support, and the third world keeps popping them out.

quote>

So you really think that a mass movement of everyone is still possible in a day where all the borders are pretty much clear, where people are pretty intolerant towards others, and where central government decide who gets in and who doesnt. I can tell you, its not gonna happen. Especially if it turns out were in the good place and they are in the bad place. The first few might be welcome, but after that the borders close and everyone gets send right back. Anyone who doesnt comply gets kicked out. Planes and boats only make it easier. Send them right back or we shoot down the plane or sink the boat. 

And water shortages? The amount of water stays roughly the same. Okay, the sources of fresh sweet water are limited. However, thats no problem for modern technology where we simply filter all the salt out of sea water (which already happens) and we simply drink sea water. 

You know its bull***** that the earth cannot support our current population. It can. Easily. Its not good for the earth but its possible. We shouldnt be heading this way, but for now, were still in the safe zone. We should do something about our current behavior or we will cross the border and get to a point where we cannot support ourselves, but for now we can. 

[DocRorlach 25]

To begin with the existence of the human race, and indeed the planet it populates, has always had a finite lifespan. While that guaranteed end is a few million years away, the proceedure towards that end will begin in a mere million years. Sounds like a lot for anyone with an average life expectancy of 75-odd years, but in terms of plaent-life it's a drop in a bucket.

In order for this planet to survive it requires the sun. Without it, there is no life. And the sun is nothing but a dying star already past its zenith.

But long before that will end this misbegotten experiment for good, man will have served itself a pink slip. Resources, even artificial ones, are also finite. You can stretch things to no end, but finally everything requires to come from somewhere. There actually is no such thing as "artificial" because even plastic needs chemicals and chemicals can only be "created" from existing stuff found here on Earth.

As for escaping this quagmire, there really is no hope because short of inventing a space-elevator out of this galaxy, the sun's demise means the demise of the solar system.

As for Lexus' argument that WWII was profitable: it was certainly not. Just about everything we built upon in terms of inventions and social evolution was put in place prior to the war. WWII only really accelerated the misuse of these inventions. Yes, someone whold have come up with the atomic bomb, WWII or not, simply because a bunch of German scientists, years before the invasion of Poland, had figured out what happens if you split an atom.

Until the invention of the transistor, relatively little was invented that did not have its roots in research and discoveries made in the fifty or hundred years before Hitler left Austria.

Nor did society advance any faster: The UN was always based on the Volkerbund, an idea out of the 1850ies put first into action during the Weimar Republic. Middle Class, the big concept of the Fifties, started when the industrial revolution turned to mass manufacturing - basically Henri Ford's baby. Suburbs, movies, even television, communication, airtravel, you name it - the roots and impetus for all of them predates that conflict.

In the end on ly the US profited, and only for a very short time, from winning that war, because it not only financed the rebuilding of the vanguished and victors of Europe, but it also created its first global markets. But that lasted all of ten years and by then the US began to pay the price for winning (and its postwar generosity) because Europe, and especially Germany, succeeded beyond everyone's expectations.

I won't even touch the ideas of arcologies and genepools: it smacks to much of SimCity 3000 meets the Masterrace. When some folks finally decide that they must do something for the survival of the human race, you can bet your bottom dollar that term "race" will be highly selective and exclusive, and its exclusivity will not be based on brains but on who can afford to survive. If that survivor club ever gets as far as breeding, the results will be less than human.

Besides: where would they go? Underground? You'd have to dig quite a few hundred miles down to escape a permafrost around -70K, at which point you start messing with the mantle and risk being roasted. Forget it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

 You may think this is pessimistic, but take a look at the disbelief of the European Jews in the 1930's.  Many of them sat still when they should have been running like hell.  That is how the Third Reich managed to corral so many.  They just sat still.  Jews have been harassed for thousands of years before that, and they just didn't believe it could happen (again).quote>

A completely different scenario. Here we have a group of people telling the other group of people they are going on a vacation camp. It is within the human nature to believe such nonsense because its easier to accept that they are going to get gassed by those same people. However, when the water starts to rise there is simply no denying. No easy way out for ourselves so we have no other choice then to do something about it at all costs. At some point there is going to be some guy that says 'hey people, look, if we don't do anything we will all die, so heres the plan, were gonna do [insert solution] and survive.'quote>

All that happened after Hitler was in power.  Before 1933 the Jews in Europe had lots of warning that they chose to ignore.  Sometime, when you are feeling literary, you can read a semi-biographical example in "The Winds of War", the book, not the TV special.

 

Notwithstanding any rationalizations on your part, I prefer to face the very real possibility that there could be an ELE anytime in the next century caused by any number of things, least likely an NEO.  Our civilization is top-heavy, and the old Malthusian Theory of population adjustment has been trumped by medical science.  We are unlikely to have a population devastating plague but we mustn't forget famine.  A great volkerwanderung, or mass displacement of people is possible, however.  We, in our first world, have too much, consume too much, and are a natural target for the masses of the third world (which now, to a great extent contains the residue of the destroyed second world of the Soviet system).  With modern means of travel, we could be overwhelmed by such a mass movement, especially in Europe which really has not ocean barriers to this kind of event.  You need only look at the Mongols and the Huns to see what could happen as history recycles.

All your fine technological solutions will go down the drain in the face of a possible people flood and it won't take much of a food shortage to start this kind of thing up.  There is also a possibility of water shortage.  The glaciers and the ice sheets in the mountains around the world are retreating.  This reduces the flow in some of the great rivers such as the Ganges.  Try paying more attention to the small details, and you will find we are heading for some kind of cusp.  There are too many people for the earth to support, and the third world keeps popping them out.

quote>

So you really think that a mass movement of everyone is still possible in a day where all the borders are pretty much clear, where people are pretty intolerant towards others, and where central government decide who gets in and who doesn't. I can tell you, its not gonna happen. Especially if it turns out were in the good place and they are in the bad place. The first few might be welcome, but after that the borders close and everyone gets send right back. Anyone who doesn't comply gets kicked out. Planes and boats only make it easier. Send them right back or we shoot down the plane or sink the boat. 

And water shortages? The amount of water stays roughly the same. Okay, the sources of fresh sweet water are limited. However, that's no problem for modern technology where we simply filter all the salt out of sea water (which already happens) and we simply drink sea water. 

You know its bull***** that the earth cannot support our current population. It can. Easily. Its not good for the earth but its possible. We shouldn't be heading this way, but for now, were still in the safe zone. We should do something about our current behavior or we will cross the border and get to a point where we cannot support ourselves, but for now we can. quote>

Now who is talking nonsense?  The global amount of water stays the same, but what about local supplies of fresh water in places like the Ganges basin?  Do you think millions of Indians are going to magically produce desalination plants overnight??  Get real, boy.  If we lose the ice sheets, which are the products of nature's distillery, and we get torrential monsoons instead, the land will be washed away along with a large number of the people.  Now this would achieve a beneficial result by reducing the population.  Not even Malthus thought of population reduction by smothering or drowning.  And if all the ice melts, the sea levels will go up about 30 meters.  Coastal cities on all continents will either be inundated or become archipelagos.  The increased tidal effects in this case will eventually raise hell with the tectonic plates and some funny motions will probably result.  Remember, this is all tied together by gravity, and the world turns, not on its geometric axis, but on the axis of equilibrium between the earth and the moon with minor influences by the sun.

Now, considering the amount of arable land, if we reduce meat production and go into full production of green proteins, we just might be able to keep everyone alive at a subsistence level.  Some are not making it now, so you need to solve the distribution problems we currently have plus the new ones when things go to hell.  There will undoubtedly be another war over lebensraum, and you had better hope there is an ocean or two between you and it.  If the population explosion doesn't come out of China, then expect it from the Hind sub-continent.  And try and remember that both of these places had high civilizations before the European tribes even thought of raising menhirs.  There is a good chance that the "New World" was essentially empty at that time, until a few people crossed the land-bridge that no longer exists in the Aleutians.  Now, however, it is full of us.  We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Something to think about:  My old geology professor used to remark that the time man has been on earth isn't the thickness of a finger-nail in a bar graph of geologic time.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

You'd have to dig quite a few hundred miles down to escape a permafrost around -70K, at which point you start messing with the mantle and risk being roasted. Forget it.

quote>

-70 K? You can't have negative temperatures in Kelvin.

And where is this big apocalyptic freeze supposed to come from, anyway?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Then what is the meaning of "permafrost around -70K"?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

All that happened after Hitler was in power.  Before 1933 the Jews in Europe had lots of warning that they chose to ignore.  Sometime, when you are feeling literary, you can read a semi-biographical example in "The Winds of War", the book, not the TV special.

 quote>

Again something different. Politics is something that can change at any moment. At least, people like to think so. You can think it away, telling yourself that you wont get involved by it. A raising sea level simply cannot be ignored, especially if your feet just got wet. 

 

 

Now who is talking nonsense?  The global amount of water stays the same, but what about local supplies of fresh water in places like the Ganges basin?  Do you think millions of Indians are going to magically produce desalination plants overnight??  Get real, boy.  If we lose the ice sheets, which are the products of nature's distillery, and we get torrential monsoons instead, the land will be washed away along with a large number of the people.  Now this would achieve a beneficial result by reducing the population.  Not even Malthus thought of population reduction by smothering or drowning.  And if all the ice melts, the sea levels will go up about 30 meters.  Coastal cities on all continents will either be inundated or become archipelagos.  The increased tidal effects in this case will eventually raise hell with the tectonic plates and some funny motions will probably result.  Remember, this is all tied together by gravity, and the world turns, not on its geometric axis, but on the axis of equilibrium between the earth and the moon with minor influences by the sun.

Now, considering the amount of arable land, if we reduce meat production and go into full production of green proteins, we just might be able to keep everyone alive at a subsistence level.  Some are not making it now, so you need to solve the distribution problems we currently have plus the new ones when things go to hell.  There will undoubtedly be another war over lebensraum, and you had better hope there is an ocean or two between you and it.  If the population explosion doesn't come out of China, then expect it from the Hind sub-continent.  And try and remember that both of these places had high civilizations before the European tribes even thought of raising menhirs.  There is a good chance that the "New World" was essentially empty at that time, until a few people crossed the land-bridge that no longer exists in the Aleutians.  Now, however, it is full of us.  We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Something to think about:  My old geology professor used to remark that the time man has been on earth isn't the thickness of a finger-nail in a bar graph of geologic time.

quote>

Do you think that glaciers magically disappear overnight? Of course not, that gives those Indians plenty of time to produce their desalination plants. Something which will happen if they notice their normal water supplies are getting less and less. Also, where do you get these predictions about monsoons from? At least the idea that they suddenly get a lot worse as well as that they will blow entire strips of land away. Id like to see your sources for that....

Also, its unlikely that all the Ice will melt. Maybe the North Pole, but thats not all the ice. I highly doubt it will ever rise 30 meters. But even if it did, show me your sources that say the Earth will suddenly start spinning in a completely different direction because of the moon. 

Well good thing the population explosion wont come from either India or China but likely Africa once they get their act together and develop which I dont see happening for the next 100 years. As for a war for living space, well great there you got your population reduction method. Some dictators start a war over some piece of land, bomb each other to hell, BAM 200 million people less. Easy no? And what has the land bridge and the fact that they 'used' (with a lot of emphasize on used) to be developed got to do with anything? Results of the past are not good indications for the future. 

And your prof was a smart man. Now look what we have achieved in so little time. Dinosaurs walked this earth for millions of years, we only for a few thousand years and we have reached the point where we can reach the moon and Mars and where we can utterly destroy ourselves if we wanted too. With such advanced technology Im quite sure we can survive a new Ice age as well as rising sea levels as well. 

@Doc

A dying sun is the least of a problems. It still takes several billion years for the sun to die out. By that time weve evolved beyond humanity for a loooooooong time. Im quite sure that by then we also have been able to shoot ourselves to another planet and continue there. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@Lexus:  I don't need sources.  I am simply pursuing events to their extreme conclusions.  I suppose I could quote the various studies on the disappearance of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and studies in the Ganges basin, as well as storm activity on the Bangladeshi coast, but this is a friendly debate, and not a trial.  I am simply using applied nexialism to gather data and forecast the disaster everyone seems to want in the near future.  You, on the other hand, insist that man will not panic when the going gets tough, and will have science come to the rescue.  Maybe it will, and maybe it won't.  Just remember that most of the fancy gadgets, including the one you are using now, in use today are based on science that was published by Dr. Einstein in the first decade of the 20th century.  I haven't seen anything startling since.

[DocRorlach 25]

BTW: you are both wrong about our global water supply: It is not constant, far from it. Only about 10-15% of all available water is fesh water, ergo drinkable. Most of that, however, is currently frozen in the arctic & antarctic region. With every ice shoal crashing into the surrounding oceans we lose freshwater resources. Population increases do in the rest. In addition to that dilemma, deforestation adds to the reduction of available "return water" because the total amount of rain (globally) is reduced and the resulting increase in arid lands enhances that negative effect. A typical example, albeit a natural (not man-made) one, is the growing of the Sahel belt, south of the Sahara desert. Areas that were sub-tropical only a few hundred years ago are now semi-deserts. And if the scientists have it right, and the sea level increases a mere 10cm (less than four inches) over the next century or two, then areas such as the Amazone forest and the Congo, our largest tropical forests reserves, will turn into saline bays the size of Texas & California combined, accelerating the loss of drinkable water resources to a point where a gallon of unprocessed water will probably be too expensive for 90% of humanity. Guess what the next big war is going to be about?

[Duke87 1,070]

I don't know that I'd call the polar icecaps a "freshwater resource". How many people do you know that get their drinking water from them? Pretty much nobody lives at those extreme latitudes and the seasonal melt goes directly into the ocean.

As for the Sahara, it tends to go back and forth between lush savannah and desert as ice ages come and go. Variations in the Earth's axial tilt vary how much sun the region gets and that makes or breaks its rainfall. It's been expanding and contracting, disappearing and reappearing for thousands, perhaps millions of years.

As for sea level rise making it more desert, that is quite possibly true, but to say it's absolutely destined to be a problem is being a tad presumptuous.

Be careful about taking an apparent trend and extrapolating it to its logical extreme... there is no guarantee it will ever even get close. A prediction is only as good as the model used to make it. Do we really have the ability to make such long term predictions based on our tiny brief history of collecting data on this stuff? Have we really identified and quantified all the variables that determine climate patterns? Come on now.

[DocRorlach 25]

So I am presumptious. Nothing new there. I presume that the sealevels will rise, and the resumption is based on the simple observation of how many glaciers, ice shelves - and even the fabled snows of the Kilamanjaro - have disappeared in my lifetime. Wonder what Hemingway would call his novel were he to write it these days.

To be brutally honest, I do not care to join the debate if any of this is man-made or not. It happens, blame becomes a moot point, especially since it appears whatever we might have done to slow or prevent it, comes a tad too late.

As for the polar ice ending up in your fridge, well, being a pessimist when it comes to the human race I tend to believe scientists who come up with the - obviously silly - idea that sooner rather than later that is exactly where most of the drinking water will come from. And that is quite apart from the fact that the Antarctica contributes largely to the rain cycle (or is beginning to fail to do so) by regulating the ocean temperatures and its current flows.

And no, the Sahara has not shrunk in the last 2000 years, it has only grown. Primarily in the lst fivehundred or so years because of the failure of the cyclic "mini-ice age", the last of which occured in the 15th or 16th century, to arrive. we are "normally" due one approx. every fivehundred years or so.

As you said, the model is as good as the data that goes into it. Hence fifty, sixty, a hundred years ago, predictions were simply not possible, hence nobody had any reason to change where we were going. And certainly we do not have every variable covered. Some errant star in the galaxy next door could upset the very apple cart that is science now. But we do have a helluva lot of data pointing to a possible and quite believable outcome. Again, simple observations of where we are and where we have been appears to corroberate the forecasts.

It ain't my future: I'll be long dead by then. Don't know about most folks on this site, though..

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, Doc, my atoms will be in the recycler by the time anything drastic happens, too.  I hope.  I'd like to hang around another thirty years or so, just to fulfill my greatest wish: "Get even, live long enough to be a problem to your children".  Besides, at the rate of growth of my sisters family, I will be a great-great-uncle by then.  I may also be a great-grandpa.  My kids have one each, my daughter has a little girl (very cute), and my son has a little boy (only seen wrapped up in swaddling clothes).

The idea of importing ice-cubes from the Arctic (Greenland Ice Shelf, "Made in Denmark") or the Antarctic ("UN Territorial Product") should not be so far-fetched.  One of these days one of our idle Billionaires will discover how to make a few more billions by providing extremely fresh, very nice tasting water.  Ice is a precious mineral that is not much mined these days.

In the Arctic, the Danes have the lion's share in Greenland while Canada and Russia are also rans, and the great State of Alaska gets a look-in.  In the Antarctic, it is all "supposed" to be U.N. Trust territory.  This is likely where the squabble will start.  It is going to make stories like Ice Station Zebra (which is a lousy movie, by the way, but I like the leitmotif) look like a stroll out for ice cream.

That big hunk that broke off the Ross Ice Shelf is still floating around down there, breaking up.  Too bad someone didn't grab it and tow it up to Africa.  They need the water in a lot of places there and it was measured in gigatonnes.  I suppose we really don't have the available technology to shepherd one of those things anywhere.

BTW, Doc, something you said makes me wonder if you have retired from the fourth estate?

[DocRorlach 25]

That idea with the icebergs has already been tried by - I believe - Saudi Arabia (or one of the emirates). Just like them; after all, they did at one time import a) sand, b) camels from Australia, so why not iced water from the Artic shelf? If recollections are correct, the project never got past the exploratory stage. "Mining" is already being studied by several European universities, and I seem to recall a mention of Berkley somewhere in there. However, for your great-grandkids, let's hope nobody succeeds too soon: it would only deplete the iceshelves further and quicker, thus raising the temperature of the ocean currents. And if we thought Greenhouse gases were bad, wait until the ocean tempartures really begin to rise. It will change weather patterns drastically, partcularily in the Atlantic which is currently the coldest ocean, and probably make the current hurrican season look like the "good old days". I just wish I could live long enough to see it all, but short of finding a fountain of middle age in the next ten or so years, I'll miss that spectacle.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Sort of reminds me of Saladin the Great who got his snow from some nearby mountaiins to mix his sherbets.

Or was that Sulieman the Magnicent (a.k.a. King Solomon).

[DocRorlach 25]

Since this is World Affairs, I reckon that the following, enforced statement ending the recent US/Russia spy drama, made in Vienna by each of the "contestants" must rank right above there with the dumbest things officials could come up with:

"They gave almost identical statements that they had been "acting as agents of a foreign government, namely the Russian Federation, without providing prior notification to the US attorney general". Each was convicted of a single count of espionage and sentenced to expulsion after 10 days' imprisonment – time they have already served on remand."

Source: The Guardian On-line (UK)

What do they mean? If tomorrow another spy comes along and writes a nice email to the Attorney-General telling him he/she is in town to do a bit of snooping into government affairs, all is OK and forgiven?

While I am relieved that this was a relatively short-lived and largely undramatic affair, I do wonder about the folks who come up with these statements.

[L'orignaux inconnu 0]

Well, it seems there was "fault on both sides", eh?  The old diplomatic cat and mouse game.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DocRorlach 25]

As you said, it is a game. And that it passed without any major dramas is quite a relief. So the swap was definitly a good thing.

Still, I cannot help but wonder what really would happen if someone where to email Homeland Security saying, "Hello, there, I am just conducting a tiny bit of spying. Will be done in a week. Ciao." How far would that monitoring go? Who would perform it?

My faith in DOHS isn't ver strong, having accidentally walked into their building in Lower Manhattan back in 2004, making it all the way up to the eight floor (found a room full of desks with only one person present) until I realized my mistake. The chap just told me to leave, nothing more. Only then did I recognize their logo on the glass door. And here's me, pretty much being mistaken for an Arab just about everywhere else..!

[Odainsaker 2,133]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach"They gave almost identical statements that they had been ""They gave almost identical statements that they had been "acting as agents of a foreign government, namely the Russian Federation, without providing prior notification to the US attorney general". Each was convicted of a single count of espionage and sentenced to expulsion after 10 days' imprisonment – time they have already served on remand."

Source: The Guardian On-line (UK)

What do they mean? If tomorrow another spy comes along and writes a nice email to the Attorney-General telling him he/she is in town to do a bit of snooping into government affairs, all is OK and forgiven?

While I am relieved that this was a relatively short-lived and largely undramatic affair, I do wonder about the folks who come up with these statements.quote>

"Agents" legally operate in other countries all the time...we call them diplomatic and consular agents and staff.  Not all actions by agents on behalf of foreign governments necessarily mean something clandestinely sinister against us is ongoing.  Meanwhile, the U.S. less grandly and melodramatically oftens sends FBI "agents" to assist in or pursue criminal investigations in other countries, while CIA agents may work in cooperation with another host country's intelligence agency.  However, these are supposed to be done with the knowledge and consent of the government of the nation in which they are operating, and within the legal restrictions set out by the host nation and international treaties.

Naturally, in a spy ring such as this, the whole point of the espionage agent is to evade the other government so as to act against them, and they would not wish to declare themselves.  However, given how both the U.S. and Russia seem to want to swiftly put the issue away, it seems it was decided to use some minor technical legalese in order to formally expel the spies, rather than agitate the populations with a screaming fuss in front of the UN or CNN.  Don't want to endanger that cooperation against Iran or see the gas lines to Europe closed in retaliation.  The silliness is not really in the text's wording, but in the catch-and-release situation.  I hope we at least took lots of photographs, fingerprints, and other biometric data and have shared the info with all our friends.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Odainsaker

I hope we at least took lots of photographs, fingerprints, and other biometric data and have shared the info with all our friends.

quote>

That's an interesting observation.  Who are the friends of the United States of America?

Let's look at the geography for a moment.

The United States has a few land borders in North America.  We have Mexico on the south, who claim to have friendly relations, but seem to do nothing about flushing their po' folks across the Rio Grande.  NAFTA notwithstanding, with friends like this ...

Then, the world's longest (until recently) undefended border with Canada.  After the knee-jerk reaction and all the high-level, congressional accusations about the 9/11 pilots, all false, we now have to have a visa to visit the states, and a passport, to  boot.  Homeland security, that new outfit that seems to consist of a bunch of empty desks, looks askance at us.  We are United States largest trading partner, and we are a buffer state between them and the guys on our northern border.  Of course, we have borders with the great state of Alaska and share our northern border with the other guys up there too.  Since we trade so much, and act a lot like them, I guess we are a friend of the United States.  We have to be!  When you sleep with an elephant, you'd better hope he doesn't roll over.

The United States also has a border in the north with Russia.  We do too.  Interesting, because even though the Russians are in a post-apocalyptic mess, they are still eyeing our territory for exploitation and annexation.  The Inuit in Nunavut will help us exert our authority over the arctic, as will our ice patrols, to say nothing of the base at Alert (is it still there?, We need more lerts.)  In theory, Russia is a friend of both of us, in an acquisitive way.  They have always been imperialists, no matter who ran the show.

Now, Canada also shares a border with Denmark.  Greenland is Danish territory, and is close enough so that the Davis Straight could be considered having the border run though it, especially in the far north.  If the south part of Davis Straight is International waters, it becomes moot at the top as to whether you are in Denmark or Canada.  Danes have always been friends with both our countries.

Any other country that is friends with the United States has to have a reason other than geography.  Many of them pay lip service while their citizens actually harm the United States.  The drug cartels get away with a lot because of this.

[DocRorlach 25]

Methinks, "friends" - when it comes to politics and the alliances falling thereunder, cannot be taken literally. Nato members are, according to the political dictionaries used by all of them, "friends", at least in the high places and during photo-ops. Borders, while a fact when it comes to crossing them (ask any would-be-illegal immigrant to Arizona), are largely irrelevant where business is concerned. And while I still concede politicians to be the mouthpieces of nations, businesses are the actual masters. I cold easily forsee a time, not too far in the future, when said masters will want to do away with borders altogether. Might be a good thing..

So given the political "realities" of today, the US does have friends indeed, even among its erstwhile enemies. The fact that the White House muled over the spy-swap longe before anyone was arrested, seem to confirm that. Of course, were the US to diminish significantly in economic clout, the number of friends might twindle rather quickly.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Methinks, "friends" - when it comes to politics and the alliances falling thereunder, cannot be taken literally. Nato members are, according to the political dictionaries used by all of them, "friends", at least in the high places and during photo-ops. Borders, while a fact when it comes to crossing them (ask any would-be-illegal immigrant to Arizona), are largely irrelevant where business is concerned. And while I still concede politicians to be the mouthpieces of nations, businesses are the actual masters. I cold easily forsee a time, not too far in the future, when said masters will want to do away with borders altogether. Might be a good thing..

So given the political "realities" of today, the US does have friends indeed, even among its erstwhile enemies. The fact that the White House muled over the spy-swap longe before anyone was arrested, seem to confirm that. Of course, were the US to diminish significantly in economic clout, the number of friends might twindle rather quickly.quote>

Doc, is twindle a Lewis Caroll portmanteau word?  A combination of twinkle and dwindle, maybe?

[DocRorlach 25]

Apologies for the typo: to twindel, as in:

"..because of opposition and populistic talking and once in government their support

twindeled

down to nothing.."

Relatively common usage in Englsih (as opposed to American, Australian, etc.)

In other news, here's a small glimmer of hope: a recent article in the NYT about the "oddest" region in Afghanistan, the green slopes of Jalalabad, close to the eastern border, just before you remound to reach the Khyber pass.

[L'orignaux inconnu 0]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

In other news, here's a small glimmer of hope: a recent article in the NYT about the "oddest" region in Afghanistan, the green slopes of Jalalabad, close to the eastern border, just before you remound to reach the Khyber pass.

quote>

Mother nature works in mysterious ways.  May Allah or whoever is looking down on these lands teach the people the way of the grove.  May anyone who injures a tree be outlawed and treated as wolves are.

[DocRorlach 25]

Eh, hold on there: wolves, what's left of them, are an endangered species in north-eastern Afghanistan..