The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The challenge of the 21st century: setting the real bottom line - part 1 > Comments

The challenge of the 21st century: setting the real bottom line - part 1 : Comments

By David Suzuki, published 31/3/2008

For the first time in history we have to ask what the collective impact of all 6.6 billion human beings on earth will be.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
My comment on this article and the toughness of the human species was posted by error on Professor Carter’s article. I apologise for the mistake
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 31 March 2008 9:41:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OLO and SusanP should be congratulated on presenting two articles in concert that present opposing views on such issues as climate change and sustainability

There just appears to be more 'shrill' in Carter's (and the posts therein).

Suzuki, while more germane, does not appear to have attracted much attention ... a shame really.

Anti-green, don't apologise. At least you had the decency to draw our attention to both articles.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 31 March 2008 12:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A

Carters article was more shrill? You must be joking. Suzuki brand of apocalyptic annihliation of our species is surely far more shrill. In fact it seems like chicken little all over again. Carter is actually a real scientist. Not a populist nature presenter. He is merely noting the lack of intellectual rigour in the IPCC reports.

But then a picture of an iceberg breaking off is always going to be more persuasive to the uneducated green-religion follower. Al Gore and the other high priests are the ones we should be really seeking advice from, not scientists.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 31 March 2008 1:18:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L

There are propagandists on both sides. Al Gore and the IPA are typical of the 2 extremes.

I don’t think the scientists at the coal face are so stupid, as the following link shows.

Professor Stephen Schneider recently presented the Sixth Annual Dempsey Lecture:

Global Warming: Is the Science Settled Enough for Policy?

http://www.cctvsalem.org/dempsey.php

It is about 80 mins in length and requires some bandwidth.

Would be interested in your comments.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 31 March 2008 1:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzuki is correct, humanity has gone from 1.5 billion to 6.6 billion
in about a hundred years. He is also correct in that we have not
done it sustainably. It was achievable on the back of cheap
and abundant oil, which is about to end.

Most of the first world have and are addressing their population
growth issues, not so the third world, which still add 80 million
or so people a year to the global population. We send them more
boatloads of food, they pop out more babies, given that few of
these women have access to family planning, abortion services etc,
as first world women do.

I don't blame them, I blame the Vatican, for their continueing tooth
and nail fight against family planning, condoms, the pill, tubal
litigation and any other modern birth control methods. They are
still promoting the concept of ever more babies in countries like
the Philipines and elsewhere and restricting womens access to family
planning in these places.

Ok, so the Vatican want more Catholic babies, as they try to outnumber
the Muslims. Clearly they are more focussed on Vatican power by
numbers, then the future of this planet. Charge the pope with
environmental degradation, that will make him sit up and take notice!
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 31 March 2008 4:05:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L

You've been captured by Carter and Marohasy, whose agenda is to keep the debate on global warming and the uncertainties on atmospheric science current. This guarantees the eco-vandals free reign for the continued polluting of the earth's biosphere.

Suzuki goes beyond the GW theory and warns of the dire impacts of A/pollution on our ecosystems, which Carter and Marohasy categorically refuse to debate.

“Suzuki brand of apocalyptic annihliation of our species is surely far more shrill. In fact it seems like chicken little all over again. Carter is actually a real scientist. Not a populist nature presenter.”

Paul.L. Suzuki is a geneticist. The science on the health impacts of A/pollution on all species and ecoysystems is not a hypothesis. The evidence has been there for decades – hence Carters and Marohasy's silence on this issue.

Strategies to remediate the planet’s ecosystems are identical to those for climate change – stop polluting.

Last night's SBS programme "Men in Danger," looked at some of the factors which may explain why sperm production in males has dropped 50% in 50 years, and explores an important question currently facing scientists which is "are chemical molecules in our environment affecting our ability to reproduce?"

Aside from the huge drop in the amount of sperm production over the last five decades, scientists have also recorded a dramatic rise in the number of testicular cancers and a disturbing increase in the number of congenital malformations in male reproductive organs - two trends echoed in wildlife studies.

This suggests the cause is environmental and not genetic. Niels Skakkebaek, Danish doctor and researcher states that the male reproductive and infertility problems we are currently facing are "as important as global warming.”

When you have prominent “populist nature presenters” such as Marohasy slyly suggesting that a persistent organic pollutant (such as DDT) is as benign as lolly water, alarm bells should start to ring.

The "Carters" and the "Marohasys" are denying that man is responsible for this planet's contaminated and already unsustainable eco-systems. So who or what is responsible?

Would any sane informed person actually believe their evil propaganda?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 31 March 2008 5:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps it is fortunate that Men's reproductive capacity is being diminished by all the chemicals now present in the environment. In time it may lead to a reduction in the number of people on the planet, particularly in countries like China, where these pollutants seem to rampant.

I also noticed in last night's SBS program that di-butyl phthalate was one of the chemicals used in a variety of products involved in the men's health problems. What was not mentioned, was that DBP is also a precurser in the production of Nylon, an almost universally obtainable fibre, and this might also lead to its universal presence in humans in significant amounts.

The production of GMO's, whilst being controversial, should at least lead to a reduction in the use of these polluting pesticides, as this seems to be one of the primary aims of their use.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 31 March 2008 7:22:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AAU

It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people die each year in China from air and water pollution. The WHO estimates that globally some 3 to 6 million people die annually from air pollution.

However, mortalities from cancers in Australia have also dramatically increased - from memory, by some 34% in a ten year span. Prostate cancer in rural men is higher than those living in an urban environment.

I constantly learn of yet another friend or acquaintance succumbing to cancer and many quite young.

I agree with you that any decrease in global population is a good thing for the environment, however, morbidity and mortalities from exposure to endocrine disruptors reveals that our eco-systems are also dying from exposure and that we, the final link in the food chain, cannot escape the consequences of man's chemical inventions.

Last night's news on endocrine disruptors is nothing new. Vietnamese children are still being born with hideous deformities from their forefather's exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. These people are still being advised not to grow crops in heavily contaminated areas.

Yet the chlorine industry remains very profitable, alive and "well!"

Carbon emissions are heavily contaminated with endocrine disrupting chemicals such as dioxins. This is a very good reason why CO2 levels should be reduced though our denialist authors on OLO would disagree, whilst endeavouring to contort the science.

GMO's, yet another of the pesticide industry's inventions to monopolise the market, requires a precautionary approach when the food we eat can be sprayed dozens of times with chemicals such as glysophate, without affecting the plant. Again, we have no knowledge of the long-term effects.

I am reminded of the adage:

"Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect."

And yet the modern day Neros fiddle, obsessed only with profit margins - self-destructing whilst the chemical Grim Reaper sits in silence beside them, contemplating his choice of mere mortals. Eeny.... meeny.... miny.... !
Posted by dickie, Monday, 31 March 2008 10:53:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has anyone seen bacteria in a petri dish reproduce in a veritable orgy to the point of extinction, when there is nothing left to sustain life? It starts slowly at first then builds up exponentially. I wonder were the human species is at on their little blue petri dish.
Posted by DialecticBlue, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 4:25:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dialectic Blue, my guess that we have a little way to go before we reach the point of even a reduction in our kind, but logic would suggest that what you are suggesting is inevitable. After all, on a smaller scale, civilisations with more limited resources have succumbed in the past. It is a pity that the disciples of Carter et al can not understand this.

Dickie, you may not be aware that Dioxans are present in decaying leaf litter in quite significant quantity as well as the other sources you mention. It would indeed appear that that "clean country air" is a bit of an urban myth unless you move out into the boondocks with the kangaroos. My farmer father in law died from cancer probably contributed to by his excessive use of weed killers where he worked on the theory that if some is good, more is better.

It would be good if we could get back to the old traditional organic farming methods, but the genie is out of the bottle and these chemicals are already in the environment and will remain for a long time. As well as that, the size of our population demands that we engage in intensive agriculture, because of the lower productivity of organic/bio dynamic farming without the addition of artificial fertilisers/nutrients. Of course, we are ultimately going to deplete our resources of potash and phosphorus with the inevitable decline in productivity, hence the scenario depicted by Dialectic Blue.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 6:55:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy