Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Refugees from Internet Infidels, but still unaware they are free.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Martin.au

1
Dave. Nobody cares about your "trials", or these small scale projects you imagine you'll do one day.

Your plan to save the world requires that your ideas be scaled up and implemented pretty well everywhere, yes? (eg: Your maths).
What we want to know is under this long term plan of yours, what happens to the lions and tigers and bears.

You can't say that your work is too minor in scale to affect wildlife populations, and then argue that it should be applied everywhere.
That's not a logical leap.

If your plan is to have a few acres in Missouri and a few in Guyana, then nobody is really going to care about your impact on ecosystems.
But that's not your plan is it? eg: " I would advocate for this general configuration everywhere on earth that it's possible" - Dave.
So the question is what happens to the existing ecosystems under that plan?
And that seems to be a question you really don't want to answer.

Dave?
2
7 is an int though.
Dave prefers floats. Sometimes very floaty floats.
4
Quote
Why wouldn't you use a 40 acre plot that they've already cut and abandoned?
Sure if fertility is enough to establish grasses. 
Quote
And, if you cut 40 out of a million, probably not. But for sure they won't live on that 40 acres.
  True, but remember I'm not planning on clear cutting vast swaths like the conventional cattle ranchers are doing.  I'm suggesting small plots dotted like patchwork in the existing rainforest so I don't know why the wildlife would not still have plenty of habitat.
Well that's a new one. Or is this perhaps describing your "small scale" project, rather than your "save the world" plan?
Quote
Are the wai wai lactose tolerant?
No idea, but I doubt it.  You guys have drunk some weird Koolaid on that issue.
O RLY. Explain why? You don't see a small problem with a heavy milk diet for people that can't drink milk?
5
"In the past, the Wai Wai people in Kanashen periodically changed the location of their villages. This reflects the agro-practice of shifting cultivation in which an area in the forest is cleared, occupied and cultivated for a period before its inhabitants move on to another area. This practice facilitates habitat and soil rejuvenation in the fragile ecosystem of a tropical rainforest."

Interesting quote from Wiki which suggests Dave's explanation of their agricultural practices may be a bit..........."cultured".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashen
6
Dave. Nobody cares about your "trials", or these small scale projects you imagine you'll do one day.

Your plan to save the world requires that your ideas be scaled up and implemented pretty well everywhere, yes? (eg: Your maths).
What we want to know is under this long term plan of yours, what happens to the lions and tigers and bears.

You can't say that your work is too minor in scale to affect wildlife populations, and then argue that it should be applied everywhere.
That's not a logical leap.

If your plan is to have a few acres in Missouri and a few in Guyana, then nobody is really going to care about your impact on ecosystems.
But that's not your plan is it? eg: " I would advocate for this general configuration everywhere on earth that it's possible" - Dave.
So the question is what happens to the existing ecosystems under that plan?
And that seems to be a question you really don't want to answer.
7
And yes that probably needs limits to population size of humans.
This is new.
What kind of limits?
In the past, you have talked of 100 - 200 billion.
Have you had occasion to rethink that?

And what sorts of mechanisms do you envision implementing your preferred limits?

Hopefully not like his grand plan to establish a singular, master, ecosystem.
8
Jesus Christ you people are idiots.

The hard cold reality I'm talking about as the actual effing numbers of actual effing pasture land and crop land and forested land.

And we're talking about the ramifications of those numbers.
And how you're failing to deal with those ramifications.
And how you're trying to talk your way around the problems without resolving them.
Like where do tigers live?


And, as a different topic, the hard, cold, reality you're ignoring when you choose and apply those numbers.

But I'm most interested in where you plan to have tigers (and lots of other animals).
You are probably smart enough to answer this question yourself.

Well, based on what you've said about your grand plan, I suspect that the answer is no-where. Feel free to clarify.
9
Jesus Christ you people are idiots.

The hard cold reality I'm talking about as the actual effing numbers of actual effing pasture land and crop land and forested land.

And we're talking about the ramifications of those numbers.
And how you're failing to deal with those ramifications.
And how you're trying to talk your way around the problems without resolving them.
Like where do tigers live?


And, as a different topic, the hard, cold, reality you're ignoring when you choose and apply those numbers.

But I'm most interested in where you plan to have tigers (and lots of other animals).
10
Nothing in your plans makes me think you're starting with hard, cold, reality. Your plans look to me like an exercise in rationalisation, with no considered thought behind it.

You post maths showing that your plan can feed everyone.
Someone posts a response that under that calculation it requires the wholesale destruction of most ecosystems, and the corresponding extinction of many animals.
You then claim that you're trying to "come up with a compromise that's good for humans and for wildlife both", in spite of the fact that your previous calculations infer mass extinctions.

Basically it looks to me like you have no plan. You're just sales pitching your way past peoples arguments without even attempting to deal with them, or reconcile the various contradictions in your "plan".

Try answering this.
If you set up farms based on an "ecosystem which can support large mammals (like humans and others) best is what he calls the "Oak Savannah" ... pasture with trees either sprinkled about as in the Spanish dehesa or in bands with the pasture as alleys" and "would advocate for this general configuration everywhere on earth that it's possible", and your maths suggests you're applying that concept everywhere.

Is there a place for Tigers under your current plan?

This may come as a surprise to you, but advocating a plan that requires the wiping out of many ecosystems, and then saying that it is "a compromise that's good for humans and wildlife both" doesn't wash. It's blatantly obvious that there's a contradiction between the various sales pitches you put forth and it's very obvious that you are avoiding trying to resolve it.
11
Thanks Vox.

Dave, is "leave them alone, while destroying their habitat to replace it with oak savannah" your plan?
Say you give everyone 3 acres and they all farm their requisite milk producers. Where in that "landscape" are you planning on keeping animals that don't belong on a farmer's 3 acres?

Or are all those calculations for your claim that under your system there's enough land to feed everyone just empty fluff?
12
Of course you can't/won't.
How long ago did you answer it? Got any keywords we can use to find your post?
13
Doesn't matter anyway. Dave's going to save the world by wiping them out. :D
14
Oops.

Yes that does look much better.
15
Dave, under your plan to save the world, what ecological systems will be dominant?
Isn't your plan to cover the world with 2 acre lots of pasture/woodlands, supporting a handful milk producing herbivores?
Whatever type of system is best suited for feeding people sustainably in each area of the world.

Is this different from what you've said in the past? eg: Your 2 acre lots everywhere using HMG to generate milk and meat?
No it's no different. But you might think it is because you might have been reading other people's caricatures of what I say instead of what I actually say.

Actually there is enough land. Here's the breakdown...

Row crops - 5.4 million sq miles - 3.456 billion acres
Permanent crops - 0.593 million sq miles - 0.379 billion acres
Permanent Pastures - 12.9 million sq miles - 8.256 billion acres
Woodland - 15.4 million sq miles - 9.856 billion acres

TOTAL - 34.3 million sq miles - 21.9 billion acres

So there's about 3 acres per person available assuming a population figure of 7 billion

I get it from reading your posts, like the one above. Please clarify.
Your "2 acre lots" sounds like ... well ... "2 acre lots"

What I said was that there's about 3 acres per person available ... which means that 1 person could have 3 acres ... or a family of 6 could have 18 acres ... or a sustainable subdivision of 300 could have 900 acres ... etc.

I'm not interested in the acreage. As you've demonstrated from your own efforts, you seem to consider that value quite flexible.
What I'm interested in is the ecosystems that you are planning to cover the world with. Can you please answer that?
Well ... Mark Shepard has said that the type ecosystem which can support large mammals (like humans and others) best is what he calls the "Oak Savannah" ... pasture with trees either sprinkled about as in the Spanish dehesa or in bands with the pasture as alleys.  If he's correct, then I would advocate for this general configuration everywhere on earth that it's possible.  Now many places on earth cannot currently grow trees because soil moisture retention is too low, but this can be changed with ... [drum roll] ... COWS!!!!  Or other large herbivores.

So basically, the one person in this forum who would like to see the Earth as a homogeneous, singular ecosystem, and the destruction of all other ecosystems is you.

Out of curiosity, in this world you desire of '"Oak Savannah" ... pasture with trees either sprinkled about as in the Spanish dehesa or in bands with the pasture as alleys.', what do you propose to do with:
Big cats?
Orangutangs?
Bears?
Badgers?


Dave???
16
Great famine of Ireland would be a worthwhile thing for you to consider, given your desire for static, non-diverse, farming.
17
I think it's funny that Dave "work with nature not against her" is promoting his idea that would require a wholesale destruction of almost all natural ecosystems so they can be replaced with a single "ecosystem".

Oak Savannah is the master ecosystem? :D
18
Don't you know what the word "unwitting" means?
Here's my theory. The Russians chose Trump as a unwitting tool because they thought he would damage America. A lot of damage would be done by just having him run. Whatever works to have Americans fighting Americans instead of Putin is good. More damage would be done if he would win, so they tried to help make this come about. With "fake news", an army of idiots, and some bots, on social media, wannabe Nazis and some paid help from within the campaign. No collusion from Trump himself required.

America is better of without an unwitting fool as the highest public servant. He needs to go.

One thing that makes me think that he's guilty of more than being an idiot, is that he's acting very, very guilty, with the persistent efforts to obstruct justice.
19
Dave, under your plan to save the world, what ecological systems will be dominant?
Isn't your plan to cover the world with 2 acre lots of pasture/woodlands, supporting a handful milk producing herbivores?
Whatever type of system is best suited for feeding people sustainably in each area of the world.

Is this different from what you've said in the past? eg: Your 2 acre lots everywhere using HMG to generate milk and meat?
No it's no different. But you might think it is because you might have been reading other people's caricatures of what I say instead of what I actually say.

Actually there is enough land. Here's the breakdown...

Row crops - 5.4 million sq miles - 3.456 billion acres
Permanent crops - 0.593 million sq miles - 0.379 billion acres
Permanent Pastures - 12.9 million sq miles - 8.256 billion acres
Woodland - 15.4 million sq miles - 9.856 billion acres

TOTAL - 34.3 million sq miles - 21.9 billion acres

So there's about 3 acres per person available assuming a population figure of 7 billion

I get it from reading your posts, like the one above. Please clarify.
Your "2 acre lots" sounds like ... well ... "2 acre lots"

What I said was that there's about 3 acres per person available ... which means that 1 person could have 3 acres ... or a family of 6 could have 18 acres ... or a sustainable subdivision of 300 could have 900 acres ... etc.

I'm not interested in the acreage. As you've demonstrated from your own efforts, you seem to consider that value quite flexible.
What I'm interested in is the ecosystems that you are planning to cover the world with. Can you please answer that?
Well ... Mark Shepard has said that the type ecosystem which can support large mammals (like humans and others) best is what he calls the "Oak Savannah" ... pasture with trees either sprinkled about as in the Spanish dehesa or in bands with the pasture as alleys.  If he's correct, then I would advocate for this general configuration everywhere on earth that it's possible.  Now many places on earth cannot currently grow trees because soil moisture retention is too low, but this can be changed with ... [drum roll] ... COWS!!!!  Or other large herbivores.

So basically, the one person in this forum who would like to see the Earth as a homogeneous, singular ecosystem, and the destruction of all other ecosystems is you.

Out of curiosity, in this world you desire of '"Oak Savannah" ... pasture with trees either sprinkled about as in the Spanish dehesa or in bands with the pasture as alleys.', what do you propose to do with:
Big cats?
Orangutangs?
Bears?
Badgers?
20
Dave, under your plan to save the world, what ecological systems will be dominant?
Isn't your plan to cover the world with 2 acre lots of pasture/woodlands, supporting a handful milk producing herbivores?
Whatever type of system is best suited for feeding people sustainably in each area of the world.

Is this different from what you've said in the past? eg: Your 2 acre lots everywhere using HMG to generate milk and meat?
No it's no different. But you might think it is because you might have been reading other people's caricatures of what I say instead of what I actually say.

Actually there is enough land. Here's the breakdown...

Row crops - 5.4 million sq miles - 3.456 billion acres
Permanent crops - 0.593 million sq miles - 0.379 billion acres
Permanent Pastures - 12.9 million sq miles - 8.256 billion acres
Woodland - 15.4 million sq miles - 9.856 billion acres

TOTAL - 34.3 million sq miles - 21.9 billion acres

So there's about 3 acres per person available assuming a population figure of 7 billion

I get it from reading your posts, like the one above. Please clarify.
Your "2 acre lots" sounds like ... well ... "2 acre lots"

What I said was that there's about 3 acres per person available ... which means that 1 person could have 3 acres ... or a family of 6 could have 18 acres ... or a sustainable subdivision of 300 could have 900 acres ... etc.

I'm not interested in the acreage. As you've demonstrated from your own efforts, you seem to consider that value quite flexible.
What I'm interested in is the ecosystems that you are planning to cover the world with. Can you please answer that?
21
Dave, under your plan to save the world, what ecological systems will be dominant?
Isn't your plan to cover the world with 2 acre lots of pasture/woodlands, supporting a handful milk producing herbivores?
Whatever type of system is best suited for feeding people sustainably in each area of the world.

Is this different from what you've said in the past? eg: Your 2 acre lots everywhere using HMG to generate milk and meat?
No it's no different. But you might think it is because you might have been reading other people's caricatures of what I say instead of what I actually say.

Actually there is enough land. Here's the breakdown...

Row crops - 5.4 million sq miles - 3.456 billion acres
Permanent crops - 0.593 million sq miles - 0.379 billion acres
Permanent Pastures - 12.9 million sq miles - 8.256 billion acres
Woodland - 15.4 million sq miles - 9.856 billion acres

TOTAL - 34.3 million sq miles - 21.9 billion acres

So there's about 3 acres per person available assuming a population figure of 7 billion

I get it from reading your posts, like the one above. Please clarify.
22
Dave, under your plan to save the world, what ecological systems will be dominant?
Isn't your plan to cover the world with 2 acre lots of pasture/woodlands, supporting a handful milk producing herbivores?
Whatever type of system is best suited for feeding people sustainably in each area of the world.

Is this different from what you've said in the past? eg: Your 2 acre lots everywhere using HMG to generate milk and meat?
23
Dave, under your plan to save the world, what ecological systems will be dominant?
Isn't your plan to cover the world with 2 acre lots of pasture/woodlands, supporting a handful milk producing herbivores?
24
Dave, I understand ecosystems as a concept. If you did, you'd know that you are talking about an amplifying feedback loop and that there are lots of those. Hence holistic management. Ecosystem management includes resilience, adaptation, and transformation. They are different responses to various dynamic behaviors of the ecosystems. What it doesn't include, at least if you are being holistic, is stable equilibrium.  It's a sad commentary that you can still miss this point when it has been explained clearly and simply to you hundreds of times. Please read the Holling article so we can at least start from a common idea. You will find it useful and it's not very long. If you won't read it, I guess that you are satisfied with your NPD chamber's soothing validation of your brilliance and your bubble is complete. I do know what you think. You don't know what anyone else thinks.

Good luck with that world saving business, btw.

I see a problem.
25
I'm curious how Dave "studied" the hydrological cycle, and missed out on the rain shadow effect.
Then again, I suspect Dave still thinks that plants are needed for it to rain.