Politically correct nonsense.

How should we think about weird things?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:58 pm

On the otherhand: we are all going to die before we get to space. Note: everything good is in decline, everything bad is on the increase. You know: its a bummer, we almost made it.

Today's "Planet Earth Report" --'World Scientists' Urgent Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice'

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... otice.html
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:31 pm

Bobbo

Still on the "we are gonna die " band wagon ?

You could easily draw up a list of graphs showing the opposite. For example, proven exploitable resources tend to increase as we discover more and (more importantly) learn better ways to extract them. For example, oil reserves are now greater than they have ever been because we can now extract a bigger percentage of any oil field. This will grow even more. There is a new technology, involving liquefaction of viscous ground oil with microwaves, which will increase oil reserves even more.

More importantly, human life expectancy continues to grow (except, strangely, in the USA.) Life expectancy is the best shorthand measure of human welfare, since anything that increases human welfare also increases life expectancy. Wealth is increasing. In sub Saharan Africa for example, economics are growing at an average of 3.5% per year. This means wealth doubles each 12 years. Fertility is dropping, meaning population growth is slowing.

That is not to suggest that there are no problems. Global warming is the biggest such problem. But none are beyond human ingenuity to manage. Even in the USA, the post Trump years should see progress in managing such problems.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:42 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Still on the "we are gonna die " band wagon ?
I assume you note the humor? Hard to tell ................................
Lance Kennedy wrote: You could easily draw up a list of graphs showing the opposite.
Please do. THEN get 20,000 expert endorsements. Challenge: the graphs are HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE FACT OF THE MATTER. Not manipulated projections.

There is a difference.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:35 pm

Yes Bobbo. I do not dispute the facts. But they still represent cherry picked data. It is very much a good news/bad news situation. Pessimists like you can always find bad news. Optimists like me can find just as much good news, if not more.

If you were to look at any time in history, you would find problems. The Hittites of 1000 BC had a civilisation based on bronze tools, and their copper mines were running out. No copper means no bronze and the collapse of civilisation. So what happened ? They worked out a method of smelting iron. Their successors included the Romans who went a step further, making steel. Their civilisation lasted a thousand years and was the maximum level of human wealth and power to that point.

There are always problems. Focus on problems as you do, Bobbo, and you will be a depressed pessimist. Focus on solutions and things look very different.

Incidentally, your graphs are out of date. For example, your population graph is most misleading. The proper graph should be human fertility, which is dropping, and gives a much more realistic view of future population size. The total forest graph is also incorrect. It should be labelled total tropical forest, which is indeed reducing. Total world forest is actually increasing with major forest planting programs in many non tropical countries, including China.

It is not surprising that your graphs are misleading. They run to 1992, and after that are projections. The projections tend to be quite wrong.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:58 pm

Lance: its not my issue or my graphs. Did you read the link? I am not your straw man.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:56 am

Bobbo

You made your position clear before posting the reference. A variation on your normal and unrealistic pessimism.

I have no problem with people pointing out problems. That is necessary. But there is no need to be totally unreal about it, as you are.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:20 am

Lance: How is linking to the most recent statement on the subject supported by 20,000 experts posting NOTHING BUT HISTORICAL INFORMATION being totally unreal?

You do go overboard....with no humor/analysis at all.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Mara » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:18 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Mara

Indigenous people's have been shockingly out of balance with the environment. This is shown by the vast number of species that went extinct when they moved in. An estimated 1000 species of birds and reptiles killed off by Polynesians crossing the Pacific. Several hundred by Carib Indians entering the Caribbean . About 50 species of megafauna wiped out by early man in North America. Over 100 species of megafauna wiped out by the first humans in Australia. Numerous in Madagascar. Ditto NZ and Hawaii.

The only reason this is not obviously also true for Europe and Africa is that human and pre humans have been there so long that their extinction effect is hidden by time.

There has NEVER been a time when humans have lived in some kind of romantic harmony with nature. That idea is total and complete bull dust.

You obviously studied different anthropology and Indigenous policy and history subjects than the ones I have studied during my university years in Australia...no to mention that I actually work with Indigenous communities in North QLD by the way... Let me guess...You studied at Trump's University?

The problem with Western culture is that despite self proclaimed scientism and denying own religions the every day culture is still very much based on christianity based thinking, that homo sapiens are above the nature, created in the face of god with nature to serve them - that's the essence of monotheistic anthropocentrism, very much embedded in many people's thinking. And yeah, we are homo sapiens - nothing else, does that bother you? We are likely not to be even any more conscious than an average ape... we surly have many illusions and delusions of self-importance, but that's it.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Mara » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:23 pm

Natalists are delusional optimists that simply have faith that things will be great because it feels more fluffy to think so - highly scientific...We have few optimists in Australia like that, Malcolm Roberts from One Nation is one of them, you'd like him Lance. You two could talk about EMPIRICAL issues in regards to climate change debate ;-)

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4548
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:00 pm

No other species has in such a short time altered its environment to such a degree. No other species has become as independent on local weather and food availability.
So "homo sapiens above nature" is a demonstrable fact, not a Christian ideology.

Can humans become extinct, such like any most other species have?
Of course - it almost happened at least once in our history.

But I dare say that humans will be able to put up more of a fight now than any other species on earth ever could.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:35 pm

Mara wrote: You obviously studied different anthropology and Indigenous policy and history subjects than the ones I have studied during my university years in Australia...no to mention that I actually work with Indigenous communities in North QLD by the way... Let me guess...You studied at Trump's University?
Is there different anthropology or did YOU just limit your study to groups that could barely survive in a water short environment? Lance, otoh, may have studied ALL the different groups, or just those who did destroy the local ecology and came away more impressed by how man acts in different ecologies?

I do think man can isolate/insulate/protect himself from the environmental damage we cause...but the ability to do that becomes more tenuous over time, the higher heights only setting up a farther fall. I mean:

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:58 pm

I note that Mara failed to deny my data. Just made some warbling and idiotic comment about anthropology.

Bobbo.
Your graphs were valid to 1992 only. Even you must agree with that.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25842
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:00 pm

.
Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:58 pm

Lance: I always read too fast, so I looked with interest if you were correct. As usual.......no.

"On the twenty-fifth anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by exploring available time-series data. Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (figure 1, file S1)." ....//// So again, perhaps reading too fast...the gray line is what the 1992 report was based on and the black line to 2016 is the data plotted for the 25 year update.

I'm sure with this confirmed data set......you will have something to think about?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:56 pm

Still not accurate. The forest area, for example, is increasing globally, not falling. That graph is a total lie. It is only tropical forest area that is falling, not global.

But the important point is that those graphs show a tiny part of the entire picture. They illustrate some problems, sure, and especially global warming. They also ignore a great deal of growth and development, especially in relation to human welfare.

For example, did you know that the major reason the global population is still increasing is not high birth rate ? Average global fertility is now less than 2.4, barely above replacement. The main reason the world population is increasing is a reduction in death rate. Simply, people are living longer, and that has to be seen as good news. Average wealth per person is increasing also, making for a better life for everyone. The percentage of the world's population that are starving is falling every decade. Food production continues to grow. Literacy is growing. Access to mass communications is growing leaps and bounds, and cell phones are now available world wide.

Humanity has never had it so good. The idea of yours, Bobbo (we are all gonna die) is total hokum. As EM pointed out, humans can now survive and thrive against adversity as we have never been able to before.

The biggest problem is still global warming, and people like Trump need to get out of the way of global efforts to fix it. Hopefully, after his 4 year term, he will become merely a sordid piece of American history, and the world can work together to manage this problem. Manage rather than cure, since global warming is an inevitability. But we can reduce its impact and design ways to cope with the worst effects.

As I sit here typing, I am waiting for the THIRD hurricane to descend upon little old NZ this summer. Cyclone Hola is set to strike us in just over 48 hours. Three cyclones in two months. I am definitely not a global warming denier. I am living through its impact. Fortunately, my home is solid and the storm will pass. But other people will suffer.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:43 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Still not accurate. The forest area, for example, is increasing globally, not falling. That graph is a total lie. It is only tropical forest area that is falling, not global.
You mean 20K experts got it wrong? I doubt it. If so, a quibble of some sort.
Lance Kennedy wrote: But the important point is that those graphs show a tiny part of the entire picture. They illustrate some problems, sure, and especially global warming. They also ignore a great deal of growth and development, especially in relation to human welfare.
Tiny part: yea verily. Only 9 important variables...so sad they don't graph every variable there is?................what does human welfare have to do with THE PLANET EARTH. Red Herring on purpose...or just that fuzzy? also not mentioned: how thick the foam is now in comfy chairs.
Lance Kennedy wrote: For example, did you know that the major reason the global population is still increasing is not high birth rate ? Average global fertility is now less than 2.4, barely above replacement. The main reason the world population is increasing is a reduction in death rate. Simply, people are living longer, and that has to be seen as good news. Average wealth per person is increasing also, making for a better life for everyone. The percentage of the world's population that are starving is falling every decade. Food production continues to grow. Literacy is growing. Access to mass communications is growing leaps and bounds, and cell phones are now available world wide.
I didn't know that..........thanks. I also don't know if 2.4 is barely above replacement or not. Seems to allow for 7% growth per year with a doubling thereby every 12 years? My gut says something doesn't add up there.......but its off topic anyway.
Lance Kennedy wrote: Humanity has never had it so good. The idea of yours, Bobbo (we are all gonna die) is total hokum.
I agree. totally spurious. I put it in the category of: "Lance has a good sense of humor and balance."
Lance Kennedy wrote: The biggest problem is still global warming,
Biggest is vague to me. Biggest challenge perhaps. But what makes it big at all if we aren't going to die? (sic!) I see a lot of the other problems as being easier to solve making AGW perhaps the hardest to solve and therefore "big"?
Lance Kennedy wrote:Manage rather than cure, since global warming is an inevitability. But we can reduce its impact and design ways to cope with the worst effects.
I would think, once it is manageable...the cure would follow rather rapidly. But I don't think we are going to get to manageable. The build up and delayed effects are overwhelming...especially with the good life so many people are getting used to?...............
Lance Kennedy wrote: As I sit here typing, I am waiting for the THIRD hurricane to descend upon little old NZ this summer. Cyclone Hola is set to strike us in just over 48 hours. Three cyclones in two months. I am definitely not a global warming denier. I am living through its impact. Fortunately, my home is solid and the storm will pass. But other people will suffer.
Sorry to hear that....seems a special kind of shame that people have to suffer because of weather/climate. but...that takes recognition and a desire/interest in addressing all the various interests. Hope your socks stay dry.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:54 pm

On fertility and replacement rate.

Fertility, of course, is simply the average number of children per woman.
Replacement rate is usually stated as approximately 2.1. That allows for a number of babies or children dying, and a number of new babies growing into adults failing to have children. The global average is a little under 2.4, which is not much above replacement rate.

Replacement rate, of course, varies a lot from one place to another. In some places, mortality is higher, and more than 2.1 is required. In the wealthy west, a lot of those babies born grow up into adults who simply do not bother to have offspring, which probably means 2.1 is not accurate.

But for what it's worth, 2.1 is usually quoted as a global average required to simply replace those who die.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:57 pm

My error is clear-er to me now. 2.4-2.1=.3 is 7% of 2.1==but that is a family unit, not a per year measurement. So something has to get divided again by...what? average number of years in a generation? My gut tells me now that number should be rather low.

ha, ha........."guts".........not a good way to evaluate rather simple math. EDIT: CRAP! can't even do the most simple of math. 2.1/.3=7 100/7 is 14%. Rule of 82 would estimate a doubling every 5 years........until we divide that by 30 years?...I'm lost? My gut tells me we won't see a doubling of current population.............not to be too pessimistic.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:36 pm

Bobbo

2.4 will not see a population double.
The number is a snapshot. It is what we have today. But it is falling. The United Nations estimates it will be no more than 2.0 by the middle of this century. Population will still be growing, albeit more slowly, due to the increasing average life span. By the end of this century, things should even out, and the population should grow no more.

If you look back 50 years, fertility then was 5.5. We know from the work of demographers that fertility gets less as wealth increases. The wealthiest nations have fertility of less than 2.0. The most fecund nations are the poorest. But wealth is increasing world wide. As the poorest nations become wealthier, their fertility will also fall.

It is even possible that in time (a century or three - a mere eye blink against the 350,000 years Homo sapiens has been around) people may get worried about the FALLING world population.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:37 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mara wrote: You obviously studied different anthropology and Indigenous policy and history subjects than the ones I have studied during my university years in Australia...no to mention that I actually work with Indigenous communities in North QLD by the way... Let me guess...You studied at Trump's University?
Is there different anthropology or did YOU just limit your study to groups that could barely survive in a water short environment? Lance, otoh, may have studied ALL the different groups, or just those who did destroy the local ecology and came away more impressed by how man acts in different ecologies?

I do think man can isolate/insulate/protect himself from the environmental damage we cause...but the ability to do that becomes more tenuous over time, the higher heights only setting up a farther fall. I mean:

Just look.

Look at what? An uneducated white man's convenient thinking? Some of the Indigenous tribes that live in balance with nature are still present today, they are closed to modern man, they are small in size, they have tribal laws where they can only reproduce with members of other tribes and that limits them from popping children as they pleased, they do not use plastic or any manufactured materials, they fish and hunt and eat what falls of the palm trees. Those tribes if you are willing to look exist within Amazon jungles, some of the closed to tourism Vanuatu island, New Zealand / Torres Strait.

Just because you think something is not achievable due to your own cultural limitations, it does not mean it is not, but first you need to self-reflect to realise how brainwashed our society is, how their 'logic' is really just a religion and industrialisation driven thinking, how people are clueless.

Human beings existed and were surviving on the planet earth long, long before any time of manufacturing, production or money was developed. Money, the economic principals that so many take for granted and are willing to die for today did not come with the Big Bang - All of these are just man made concepts and belief systems that have nothing to do with science and natural laws.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:52 am

Mara.

Different people's are like different individuals. Not all the same. In other words, their impact on local ecologies varies enormously. Some are very destructive. Some less so. But the point is that they are not a bunch of little angels, living in harmony with nature.

Primitive people have very different priorities to modern people. Their number one concern is getting enough food. To do that, they do what they have to. Sometimes that involves driving a species into extinction, which I have pointed out has happened with alarming frequency.

The truth is that primitive people's have no concern about conservation and living in harmony. This concern is modern. It is only in the last 100 years or so that any group of humans anywhere has developed a feeling for ecological responsibility. Primitives may know their environment intimately, but their focus is on how to exploit it. Not how to save it. Their level of exploitation is limited only by their lack of technology.

The reason native peoples in places such as the Amazon do not use plastics and firearms is because they do not have them. When these things become available, they adopt them with some enthusiasm.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Mara.

Different people's are like different individuals. Not all the same. In other words, their impact on local ecologies varies enormously. Some are very destructive. Some less so. But the point is that they are not a bunch of little angels, living in harmony with nature.
No, it takes culture not individuals to interpret human's role in nature. The western culture is based on anthroprocentrism that started with christianity. Industrialisation era was not an individual's doing, Indigenous people did not develop manufacturing or urbanisation, we did, they did not need it for their way of life, we did.
Lance Kennedy wrote: Primitive people have very different priorities to modern people. Their number one concern is getting enough food. To do that, they do what they have to. Sometimes that involves driving a species into extinction, which I have pointed out has happened with alarming frequency.
'Primitive people" - listen to yourself, this is exactly where your are stuck with your old christian superior 'logic'
Lance Kennedy wrote: The truth is that primitive people's have no concern about conservation and living in harmony. This concern is modern. It is only in the last 100 years or so that any group of humans anywhere has developed a feeling for ecological responsibility. Primitives may know their environment intimately, but their focus is on how to exploit it. Not how to save it. Their level of exploitation is limited only by their lack of technology.
Today there are very few genuine tribes like the ones in Amazon, Vanuatu and New Zealand / Torres Strait, many of Indigenous people lost their culture because they have been separated by force, against their will, and forced to integrate and assimilate to our ways, NOT the other way around.
Lance Kennedy wrote: The reason native peoples in places such as the Amazon do not use plastics and firearms is because they do not have them. When these things become available, they adopt them with some enthusiasm.
WOW, your denial is unbelievable. Have you survived your entire life like that? The Indigenous communities make choices not to mix with us, those communities are closed to modern people despite numerous attempts at shifting them, studying them, and 'upgrading' them. Those genuine tribes that still operate in line with their original eco-centric cultures want to be left alone by us, they do not want our modern ways.

Sorry Lance but you are a simple self-taught man who is way too over confident for what he knows and understands...You are causing harm with your posts and your are not even correct..


Start with these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hklt2xW2DCg

Allen, J. (1997). “The Impact of Pleistocene Hunters and Gatherers on the ecosystems of Australia and
Melanesia: In Tune with Nature?” In Kirch, P.V. and Hunt, T.L. (eds) Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmental and Landscape Change. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 22-38.

Coates, K. (1999). “The Gentle Occupation: The Settlement of Canada and the Dispossession of the First
Nations,” in Havemann, P. (1999). Indigenous People’s Rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Altman, J. and Jordan, K. (2008). Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous Australians: Submission to the
Garnaut Climate Change Review. CAEPR Topical Issue No. 3/2008. Canberra: Australian National University.

Furgal, C. and Seguin, J. (2006). “Climate Change, health and Vulnerability in Canadian Northern Aboriginal
Communities.” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol.114. No. 12, pp. 1964-1970.

Green, D, King, U. and Morrison, J. (2009). “Disproportionate Burdens: the multidimentional impacts of climate change on the health of Indigenous Australians.” Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 190, No. 1, pp. 4-5.

Jeffries, S. and Devagiri, R. (2008). “A Changing Climate: Indigenous Engagement with Climate Change –
Impact, Related Regulations and the Green Economy.” Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology Sydney.

Hunter, E. (1999). “Considering the Changing Environment of Indigenous Child Development.” Australian
Psychiatry, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 137-140.

Ruru, J. (2005). “Indigenous peoples and Family law: Issues in Aotearoa/New Zealand.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 19, pp. 327-345.

Durie, M. (2004). “An Indigenous model of health promotion.” Health promotion Journal of Australia, Vol 15, No. 3, pp. 181-185.

Attwood, Bain and Fiona Macgowan (eds.) (2001) Telling Stories: Indigenous history and memory in Australia and new Zealand, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest.

Brock, Peggy (2001) Words and Silences: Aboriginal Women, Politics and Land. Allen & Unwin. Crows Nest, N.S.W. Broome, Richard (2002). Aboriginal Australians: Black Responses to White Dominance, 1788-2001, Allen & Unwin. Crows Nest, N.S.W.

Charlesworth, Max (1984) The Aboriginal Land Rights Movement. Hodja Educational Resources. Richmond, Vic. Clarke, Philip (2003) Where the Ancestors Walked: Australia as an Aboriginal Landscape. Allen & Unwin. Crows Nest, N.S.W.

Blackstock, Cindy et al (2004) Keeping the Promise:The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Lived Experiences of First Nations Children and Youth, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada at: http://www.fncfcs.com/docs/KeepingThePromise.pdf

Frideres, James and Rene Gadacz (2005) Aboriginal peoples in Canada, 7th Edition, Pearson Education Canada Inc., Toronto.

Tennant, Paul (1990) Aboriginal Peoples and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, B.C.

Alves, Dora (1999) The Maori and the Crown: An Indigenous People's Struggle for Self-Determination. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT.

Attwood, Bain and Fiona Magowan (2001) Telling Stories: Indigenous History and Memory in Australia and New Zealand. Allen & Unwin. Crows Nest, N.S.W.

Brookfield, F.M. (1999) Waitangi and Indigenous Rights: Revolution, Law, and Legitimation. Auckland University Press. Auckland, N.Z.

Evison, Harry C (1997) The Long Dispute: Maori Land Rights and European Colonisation in Southern New Zealand. Canterbury University Press. Christchurch, New Zealand.

Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation: http://www.antar.org.au/

Indigenous Australia: http://www.dreamtime.net.au/

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4548
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:11 am

No doubt agriculture changed humanity's relationship with its environment forever. And it probably hasn't made us happier.
But those are irrelevant considerations, since there is no possible scenario in which we can return to a pre-farming lifestyle.

Mara, you are thinking along the lines of the "Club of Rome", i.e. in terms of finite resources.
But life creates resources by making it possible to utilize what was unavailable before. There is no "glass half empty", because the size and shape of the glass changes constantly.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:15 am

Sorry guys, but unless you are willing to familiarise yourself with knowledge that does not come form wikipedia and blogs I will not waste any more of my time here.

I just hope I made you realise how much more there is to this topic... When I signed up to SkepticForum I thought I will be conversing with professionals in various fields that are being discussed on these forums, clearly not.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4548
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:17 am

So you came here to teach, not to learn...

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:27 am

Learn from who?? Armatures with convenient views? Once you commit years educating yourself on these topics the way I have then we we can debate and I will consider your points with respect, but you need to have basics at least. You will not understand in 5 minutes what takes people 5 years of study and years of exposure to get, you are fooling yourself if you think your views are adequate to teach anyone anyone. I may as well go on Facebook or YouTube. SkepticForum suppose to have better reputation...Maybe once upon a time it had.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4548
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:34 am

Sorry Mara, but it sounds like you see everything through the lens of your education. People here have studied different things and have therefore different angles on how to view human history and future.
It is highly unlikely that any single one view is the only correct one.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:46 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Sorry Mara, but it sounds like you see everything through the lens of your education. People here have studied different things and have therefore different angles on how to view human history and future.
It is highly unlikely that any single one view is the only correct one.
No, universities in free countries teach to critically think, you learn many angles by being given many resources, but you look at data not just opinions, research is based on procedures evolved to gather information. These includes qualitative research, analysis of historical documents etc.

Of course you want to feel able to discuss any topic but that does not mean what you have to say is anything more but your personal opinion not backed by anything but your words. I am a white western person that had to think long time to understand what I know now and it was not easy, it was not convenient either but it was the truth. The truth is not open to interpretations as far as evidence-based approaches are concerned.

If you just want to exchange opinions there are plenty of bloggers online.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4548
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:53 am

Data is nothing without a narrative; and that depends on scope and time.
You draw an arbitrary line at which to make a judgement about humanity - that is your decision, but is not an abstract truth.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:01 pm

Mara wrote:Learn from who?? Armatures with convenient views?
Now there is a truth that will be hard to leggo of.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10341
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Poodle » Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:06 pm

Armatures form the backbone of Ceramica culture. They support all of the ancient ways.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:53 pm

Mara is hung up on a fallacy. The fallacy of the noble savage. The truth is that there is and never was any such thing.

I will continue to use the term "primitive ". There are two different dictionary definitions.
1. An early stage of evolution or development.
2. Basic.

For tribal hunter gatherer peoples, the word fits in the first definition.

But the thing is that primitive people are still humans with all the faults of humans. That includes the desire to exploit rather than preserve. Mara thinks that he is an expert on primitive people's, but it is clear he is not. For example, the Maori people of my country were tribal and hostile to other tribes. Murder, slavery, war, cannibalism and rape were common . They wiped out 36 species of native bird , mostly in the first 150 years of their residence, including 10 species of moa (including the tallest bird ever to have lived) two large adzebills, the largest eagle in the world, and a bunch of others. European settlers were also bad, of course, wiping out a further 15 species. The Maori also destroyed a third of all the rainforest. All this was done with stone age tools. Imagine what they would have done with modern tools.

In Australia, over 100 species of megafauna went extinct after the arrival of the first humans, presumably the same people as aboriginals today. North America saw at least 50 species of megafauna wiped out. This pattern was repeated all round the world as stone age cultures invaded.

Being primitive does not stop humans being human. Humans are exploiters. It is only in the last 100 years that people have started to develop an awareness of ecology and the need for conservation. Primitive people's often have a detailed knowledge of their environment, but it is focussed on exploitation, not conservation . Where a primitive cultures 'lives in harmony with nature ', it is because they have already done all the harm they can, and their limited technology prevents them doing more.

I am not trying to be hard on primitive people's, who are simply being human. Even in today's wealthy western world, we have lots of exploiters, who do not give a crap about nature. The thing is that no culture is made up of little angels. We have the advantage today of knowledge, especially of ecology.

Mara needs to face up to reality. He is living in a comfortable internal world of romanticism.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4548
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:08 pm

Steven Pinker showed in "Better Angels" that there never was as much violence per capita as in the hunter/gatherer period of human history.
Noble savages indeed.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:08 pm

Funny, EM. My version of "Better Angels " does not show that. Pinker points out that the evidence is of widespread violence. The Yanomami tribe in South America, for example, lose about 20% of their male population to violence every generation.

I have spent a lot of time in Fiji and in Papua New Guinea (as well as among the Maori of my own country), and I have studied them. The pre-European cultures were not peaceful at all. War between tribes was common.

The best description of the Maori of my country came from the log books of the first Europeans to visit NZ. Captain Cook gave the first, and possibly the best description. Cook had a Tahitian man on board who spoke some English, Tupuaia by name. This gentleman was able to talk to the Maori because Tahitian and Maori are similar. Tupuaia passed on what he learned, and Cook wrote it down in his ships log. Since the Maori did not think what they were doing was wrong, they freely described their way of life. Cannibalism, killings of the men of other tribes, enslaving the women of other tribes, and so on. We have this recorded in Cooks ships log.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5794
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Tom Palven » Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:44 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Funny, EM. My version of "Better Angels " does not show that. Pinker points out that the evidence is of widespread violence. The Yanomami tribe in South America, for example, lose about 20% of their male population to violence every generation.

I have spent a lot of time in Fiji and in Papua New Guinea (as well as among the Maori of my own country), and I have studied them. The pre-European cultures were not peaceful at all. War between tribes was common.

The best description of the Maori of my country came from the log books of the first Europeans to visit NZ. Captain Cook gave the first, and possibly the best description. Cook had a Tahitian man on board who spoke some English, Tupuaia by name. This gentleman was able to talk to the Maori because Tahitian and Maori are similar. Tupuaia passed on what he learned, and Cook wrote it down in his ships log. Since the Maori did not think what they were doing was wrong, they freely described their way of life. Cannibalism, killings of the men of other tribes, enslaving the women of other tribes, and so on. We have this recorded in Cooks ships log.
Seems you misread EM's first sentence and that he agrees with you. (So do I.)
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:35 am

My apology. Correct. I did misread it. Sorry EM.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29850
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:40 pm

I studied anthropological pre-history at Sydney uni. I suggest we reboot the discussion by making clear claims and keep it friendly.

I don't agree with the noble savage concept. I do agree that some human cultures continue in harmony with their environment, however that's a trade off. As soon as we want rights, longer life, lower infant mortality and an colour TV sets......we are going to have to start changing the environment to obtain and use resources.

It is not a question of whether we change the environment or not, but rather what do we replace the environment with and is that sustainable in the long run?
:D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:19 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote: I don't agree with the noble savage concept. I do agree that some human cultures continue in harmony with their environment,
...wouldn't those cultures all be noble savages? If not, why not? Although...I am thinking of several far North groups that live in harmony but I'm thinking thats only because they don't have a choice? They are just two small in numbers to have an impact on their local environment: aka Eskimos, Lapplanders and such.

Informative might be the Mayans? Lived in harmony (easy to think so) with their nature gods and rituals....but...they moved water around to grow maize and support their millions. After a few centuries and just before the Spaniards landed they experienced severe estended drought and their civilization was crumbling before the boots were applied. So...in harmony but still could not maintain their society with "natural" conditions. I think they "tried" but failed to kill every bird of the type that had a feather they wanted?........Don't know why they didn't breed them for the purpose? How come natives don't do that?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12038
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:18 am

As a matter of interest, Bobbo, I did an internet search for Holocene extinctions in South America. That is, the animals that were killed off after primitive humans moved into South America. My source was for 28 species of mammal wiped out. This was not the Maya, of course, who came much later. But I would be seriously surprised if the Maya were more balanced ecologically.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16171
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Politically correct nonsense.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:48 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:This was not the Maya, of course, who came much later. But I would be seriously surprised if the Maya were more balanced ecologically.
That was my "main" thought although not presented out front: the Maya WERE BALANCED for centuries.....but then the climate changed enough to knock them off. Tropical jungles have the water to support a lot of people: but not millions growing corn every chance they get.

Saw a segment on Somalia. Extended drought there has just about wiped out the million or so herders that lived off goats and camels and quick home gardens. Same with Syria although they were more into farming. They all go to the city and complain leading to civil unrest. Climate Change right before our eyes....yet we are still "waiting" for its effect.....cause if it doesn't happen to you, it doesn't really happen.

....................and there goes the family of man. sadly.... a lot like my own family..........ha, ha.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?