Can you make a list of all the things we need besides
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
Matt Beasley wrote:--------------------
Can you make a list of all the things we need besides------------------------
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
What you would do with the list?
On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 10:16:41 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besides
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
I already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need* copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser? <https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 08:46:41 UTC, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 10:16:41 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Öö Tiib wrote:---------------------
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besides
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
I already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need* copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-ArabianIf it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins ......
NEOM project as scientific adviser? <https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need* >> copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
The Shakers seem shaky.
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need* >>>> copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around >>>> us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besides
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
I already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need* copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are not known to be needed.
---------------------What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian NEOM project as scientific adviser? <https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins ......
How about birds, insects, mammals, fish, coal, oil, natural gas,
soil, lichens, fungi, clean air, clean water, trees, shrubs, grasslands, etc.?
Matt Beasley wrote:----------------------
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of >>>> copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around >>>> us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are >>>> not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian >>>> NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of >>>> copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are >>>> not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian >>>> NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that----------------------
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine
his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity?
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 02:06:45 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-based
Matt Beasley wrote:----------------------
*Hemidactylus* wrote:How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of >>>>>>> copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around >>>>>>> us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are >>>>>>> not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian >>>>>>> NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine
his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information
that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity?
industries.
On 11/21/23 1:45 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 02:06:45 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-based
Matt Beasley wrote:----------------------
*Hemidactylus* wrote:How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of >>>>>>> copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine
his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information >> that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity?
industries.
Not entirely true. By the 1970s, the Sahara had doubled in size not due
to industry, but because pastoralists on its edges kept cutting down whatever plant life they found for firewood.
Matt Beasley wrote:----------------------
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of >>>> copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that----------------------
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine
his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity?
Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-based
industries.
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong.
We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that----------------------
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine
his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity?
Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-based----------------------
industries.
The population has jobs in the industries, and the population buys
the products produced in those industries. Do you have any new info
that would allow us to carry on with 8 billion, in perpetuity, without
any significant negative consequences?
On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 01:11:46 UTC+2, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/21/23 1:45 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:Depends what times you compare to get that "double". 10000 years ago
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 02:06:45 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-based
Matt Beasley wrote:----------------------
*Hemidactylus* wrote:How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong. >>>>>>>>> We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of >>>>>>>>> copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are >>>>>>>>> not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian >>>>>>>>> NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine
his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information >>>> that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity? >>>>
industries.
Not entirely true. By the 1970s, the Sahara had doubled in size not due
to industry, but because pastoralists on its edges kept cutting down
whatever plant life they found for firewood.
Sahara was all savanna, 100 years ago it was "only" 10% smaller.
Were these really locals or overall climate change? Hot weather just
dries everything out, chlorophyll stops working around 45°C and
water is anyway needed to make glucose from water + carbon dioxide.
Matt Beasley wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong. >>>> We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that----------------------
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information
that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity?
Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-based industries.----------------------
The population has jobs in the industries, and the population buys
the products produced in those industries. Do you have any new info
that would allow us to carry on with 8 billion, in perpetuity, without
any significant negative consequences?
We have to carry on unless you propose (and have power to organise)
nuclear war. Also what is obvious ... making laws, international agreements and trade rules far more harsh for thriftless abuse of nature and manufacturing trash would be probably more popular than nuclear war.
On 11/21/23 5:07 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 01:11:46 UTC+2, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/21/23 1:45 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:Depends what times you compare to get that "double". 10000 years ago Sahara was all savanna, 100 years ago it was "only" 10% smaller.
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 02:06:45 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-based
Matt Beasley wrote:----------------------
*Hemidactylus* wrote:How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong. >>>>>>>>> We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine >>>> his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information
that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity? >>>>
industries.
Not entirely true. By the 1970s, the Sahara had doubled in size not due >> to industry, but because pastoralists on its edges kept cutting down
whatever plant life they found for firewood.
Were these really locals or overall climate change? Hot weather just
dries everything out, chlorophyll stops working around 45°C and
water is anyway needed to make glucose from water + carbon dioxide.
Climate warming was not significant by the 1970s. The doubling in the
Sahara Desert's area in the 20th century was human-caused.
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong. >>>> We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that----------------------
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information
that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity?
Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-based industries.----------------------
The population has jobs in the industries, and the population buys
the products produced in those industries. Do you have any new info
that would allow us to carry on with 8 billion, in perpetuity, without any significant negative consequences?
We have to carry on unless you propose (and have power to organise) nuclear war. Also what is obvious ... making laws, international agreements-----------------
and trade rules far more harsh for thriftless abuse of nature and manufacturing trash would be probably more popular than nuclear war.
The spiritual recovery program started with alcoholics and was successfully adapted to many other kinds of chronic troublemakers, so it's the obvious choice
as an alternative to "politics as usual". But it's a lot easier to say NO, than it is
to say YES; if you say YES, then you have to do something.....if you say NO, then
you're all done right there, just like that, a "piece of cake". lol
On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 17:51:47 UTC+2, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/21/23 5:07 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 01:11:46 UTC+2, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/21/23 1:45 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:Depends what times you compare to get that "double". 10000 years ago
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 02:06:45 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote: >>>>>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-basedMatt Beasley wrote:----------------------
*Hemidactylus* wrote:How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besidesI already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of >>>>>>>>>>> copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine >>>>>> his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information >>>>>> that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity? >>>>>>
industries.
Not entirely true. By the 1970s, the Sahara had doubled in size not due >>>> to industry, but because pastoralists on its edges kept cutting down
whatever plant life they found for firewood.
Sahara was all savanna, 100 years ago it was "only" 10% smaller.
Were these really locals or overall climate change? Hot weather just
dries everything out, chlorophyll stops working around 45°C and
water is anyway needed to make glucose from water + carbon dioxide.
Climate warming was not significant by the 1970s. The doubling in the
Sahara Desert's area in the 20th century was human-caused.
Let me try again?
Claim of size growth of desert takes two dates.
Without it "doubling by 1970" makes no sense. Should I assume from 1900?
Yet between 1920 and 2018 growth of Sahara has been about 10% or at
least so that propaganda site of an evil imperialist country tells: <https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=244804>
So how there was doubling between 1900 and 1970?
When the bad local people did collect all plants on 1,5 million of square miles to turn it into 3,5 square miles it currently is?
I've read that big part of its desertification during last 10,000 years explained by the Earth "wobbling" on its axis. So by that how where
the Earth points moves in a circular fashion every 26,000 years and
so causing wetter or dryer North Africa. It can be of course also
wrong story, I don't know.
On 11/22/23 10:21 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 17:51:47 UTC+2, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/21/23 5:07 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 01:11:46 UTC+2, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/21/23 1:45 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:Depends what times you compare to get that "double". 10000 years ago
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 02:06:45 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote: >>>>>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Nature is not damaged by population but heartless greed-basedMatt Beasley wrote:----------------------
*Hemidactylus* wrote:How often are you critical of your own views? Wait you don’t have any that
Robert Carnegie wrote:-----------------
Öö Tiib wrote:The Shakers seem shaky.
Matt Beasley wrote:
Can you make a list of all the things we need besides >>>>>>>>>>>> the five Ehrlich/Simon metals?I already wrote to your similar question that the premise that we *need*
copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten is already wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> We (and/or our food species + symbiotes) need only trace amounts of
copper, chromium and nickel, there are way more of it in nature around
us than any imaginable size of population needs. Tin and tungsten are
not known to be needed.
What you would do with the list? Plan to participate in Saudi-Arabian
NEOM project as scientific adviser?
<https://www.archdaily.com/986129/saudi-arabia-plans-170-kilometer-long-mirrored-skyscraper-city>
If it wasn't covered before, we "need" vitamins
in our diet that other living things produce
in their own organism, maybe needing them
in the sane way that we do. It seems that we
/had/ a gene for making our own Vitamin C,
it's still there, but it doesn't work any more.
Some substances, it is hard to see how biology
could work if they didn't exist. But many
substances that human biology currently
relies on, if they had never been available
then our bodies could have become very
much what they now are by using a different
chemistry instead. For that matter, conceivably
a better biology than ours could have been
designed, and we would have been out-competed,
except for the absence of a designer.
Then again, maybe dodos thought like that
about their place in the world. And now
we're here and they are not.
Most people don't want to hear anything different
than what they already believe!
are your own because your posts are mostly copypasta.
Every person who is searching for truth must examine and re-examine >>>>>> his beliefs in light of new information. Do you have any new information
that would allow us to continue growing the population, in perpetuity?
industries.
Not entirely true. By the 1970s, the Sahara had doubled in size not due >>>> to industry, but because pastoralists on its edges kept cutting down >>>> whatever plant life they found for firewood.
Sahara was all savanna, 100 years ago it was "only" 10% smaller.
Were these really locals or overall climate change? Hot weather just
dries everything out, chlorophyll stops working around 45°C and
water is anyway needed to make glucose from water + carbon dioxide.
Climate warming was not significant by the 1970s. The doubling in the
Sahara Desert's area in the 20th century was human-caused.
Let me try again?
Claim of size growth of desert takes two dates.
Without it "doubling by 1970" makes no sense. Should I assume from 1900? Yet between 1920 and 2018 growth of Sahara has been about 10% or at
least so that propaganda site of an evil imperialist country tells: <https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=244804>
So how there was doubling between 1900 and 1970?
When the bad local people did collect all plants on 1,5 million of square miles to turn it into 3,5 square miles it currently is?
I've read that big part of its desertification during last 10,000 years explained by the Earth "wobbling" on its axis. So by that how whereI may have misremembered the number, or perhaps the writers of the
the Earth points moves in a circular fashion every 26,000 years and
so causing wetter or dryer North Africa. It can be of course also
wrong story, I don't know.
article I'm think of (circa 1977 in the _Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists_) were using different standards of measurement. There's no hard-and-fast line delimiting where the desert ends, and they may have
been including the desertification which is causing famines in the
Sahel.
At any rate, the desertification is certainly man-made, mostly
from fuel gathering, and it has affected a very large area and continues
to grow.
My impression from both memory and cursory research just now is that the Sahara has been mostly unaffected by climate changes since at least 2000
BCE until rising temperatures starting roughly in the 1980s or 1990s. I further doubt that human impact was severe before industrialization and modern medicines, so I would guess that the starting time for the
doubling (if it was that) would be about 1850.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:05:39 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,603 |