The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[DwnWthVwls]

Oh, you thought I was serious.. that's funny.

I have a degree in environmental science with a focus in hydrology and forestry. Youre being hyperbolic and it's pretty apparent you don't really have a good grasp on how things work. Stick to history homie.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Oh, you thought I was serious.. that's funny.

I have a degree in environmental science with a focus in hydrology and forestry. Youre being wildly hyperbolic and it's pretty apparent you don't really have a good grasp on how things work. Stick to history homie.

You should ask for a refund because they failed to teach you how ecosystems work and that’s pretty basic stuff.

[DwnWthVwls]

Yeah, **** me.. I only worked with a professor for 3 years on the campus's forest management plan to bring back biodiversity, did habitat analysis for endangered bird species(which got presented twice at academic events), went to Kentucky and West Virginia to study sustainable agriculture and do research at Robinson Experimental Forest... I'm such a dolt. I could keep bragging about credentials if you'd like, but I don't think that would convince you that I'm more qualified to make environmental assessments than some disgruntled landscaper who has hardly read any studies or got his hands dirty in the field.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Yeah, **** me.. I only worked with a professor for 3 years on the campus's forest management plan to bring back biodiversity, did habitat analysis for endangered bird species(which got presented twice at academic events), went to Kentucky and West Virginia to study sustainable agriculture and do research at Robinson Experimental Forest... I'm such a dolt. I could keep bragging about credentials if you'd like, but I don't think that would convince you that I'm more qualified to make environmental assessments than some disgruntled landscaper who has hardly read any studies or got his hands dirty in the field.

Shows how worthless our colleges have become. All that **** you pay for but they didn’t even teach you the ABC’s of your field. I’m serious, go and fill in the gaps where they cheated you.

[DwnWthVwls]

Crazy right.. Not only did my college fail me, but so did the other educational institutions that I was involved with.

Curious where you get all your environmental information, and if all you do is read about the bad things and none of the things we are restoring thanks to hardworking scientists and environmental protection agencies. Also, curious if you understand that invasive species and diseases play a role in environmental destruction or if you just chalk it all up to "bad humans".

Go do some reading: https://neobiota.pensoft.net/

[OccultHawk]

Invasive species are transported by people.

Less people less invasive species

Plus that’s a stupid bait and switch

People rely on agriculture

Agriculture is monoculture

Monoculture is death

[Oriphiel]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Uhh no? We only need plants and water.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

It’s not anymore absurd than lacking a general awareness of the basic problem.

[Oriphiel]

But he forgot porn.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

I think there is an in between here that makes both of you kind of correct. IF we don't change things we are probably approaching capacity, but technology has a lot to offer so I don't think we have a good grasp of potential capacity with the use of technology not yet discovered, developed, or implemented.

^ Yes, there is some hope in this idea, DWV; some ray of light that suggests we may not be headed for global catastrophe. I completely agree with the bolded, which unfortunately means that things could go either way: technology could save us, or not.

Originally Posted by Anteater

Dude, you'd have to be a complete idiot who hasn't kept pace with current technology and trends to come to that kind of conclusion. Neither you nor Lisna take those things into account yet you snub the conclusions of what I posted.

^ I snubbed the conclusions of what you posted because the writer didn't understand the arithmatic of his own statistics.

Originally Posted by Anteater

Everything you think you know about food production is going to be a thing of the past as early as the next decade. There's also hundreds of thousands of miles of land out there that will become habitable as biotech and our grasp on agricultural tech advances continue to evolve.

^ Yes, lab grown meat and fish farming may help out. Your statement in bold is very worrying because I'm sure I've heard it somewhere before - oh, yeah that's right; propaganda associated with the American government's Homestead Act, just before the Dustbowl kicked in.

Originally Posted by Anteater

These aren't pipe dreams, but an inevitable place we will arrive at based on where we are right now.

^ This comment brings us back to the start of this discussion, which was [MERIT]'s assertion that the planet is nowhere near full capacity. To restate my basic objection: with unprecedented levels of population, the future is not certain, and there is enough evidence for us to be seriously worried.

Originally Posted by Anteater

And Lisna, I'm not disagreeing with your overall analysis (taken on its own with all other variables ignored), but beyond women who are infertile I don't see any info on mortality rates, statistics related to deaths caused by disease, etc. etc. You have to factor those things in, along with paradigm shifts in biotech and whatever else is going on out there that you haven't factored in.

^ That would be a long job, so I'd rather leave the honour of doing that research to you, Anteater.

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

What resources are we depleting that will hinder reproduction of the things we need to sustain human life?

^ Yep, as OH mentioned, a short answer to your question would be "Fish". A more detailed answer is provided by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation:-

Spoiler for The UN agrees with OH and Lisna:

Snapshot of the global situation Of the 600 marine fish stocks monitored by FAO:
3% are underexploited
20% are moderately exploited
52% are fully exploited
17% are overexploited
7% are depleted
1% are recovering from depletion

Definitions:
Underexploited: Believed to have a significant potential for expansion in total production;
Moderately exploited: Exploited with a low level of fishing effort. Believed to have some limited potential for expansion in total production;
Fully exploited: The fishery is operating at or close to an optimal yield level, with no expected room for further expansion;
Overexploited: The fishery is being exploited at above a level which is believed to be sustainable in the long term, with no potential room for further expansion and a higher risk of stock depletion/collapse;
Depleted Catches are well below historical levels, irrespective of the amount of fishing effort exerted;
Recovering Catches are again increasing after having been depleted

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Curious where you get all your environmental information, and if all you do is read about the bad things and none of the things we are restoring thanks to hardworking scientists and environmental protection agencies.

^ Surely this is not a good moment to suggest that EPAs are helping to solve the challenges of burgeoning population growth.
In the USA the EPA is being gutted by a meglomanic taking backhanders from the oil industries. They are reducing National Parks and approving oil pipelines. You mention the hardworking scientists, and I'm sure that there are many - what a pity then that in Trump's EPA they can't post their data on-line and are not even allowed to use the term "Global Warming."