bombus

I think Venus is a far better bet than Mars

Like what? But well deserved The review has taken many things out of context and in many cases she just seems to have completely misunderstood what is actually being said, to the point of thinking M. Boulter is saying the opposite of what he is actually saying. She also misunderstands the tone of the book, taking offence when none is intended, and some of her statements just show how she doesn't undertand the 'big concept' at all. Well she is an Associate Professor, which isn't a real professor at all. M. Boulter has been the Secretary of the International Organisation of Paleobiology for over twenty years. He is also the Chair the UK Governments Biodiversity Steering group. Having met him on numerous occasions, I know him to be a modest, honest and very (very!) clever scientist, not the unscholarly, boastful, anti US data-thief Ms. Walker seems to portray. I'm sure if she met him she'd feel quite ashamed!

I don't get what you're trying to say? All the SOC 'theory' is saying is that evolution, radiation and extinction follow power law principles, like just about everything else. That would make sense to me. That's possibly the poorest, most inaccurate, twisted and plain unfair review of a book I have ever read! I reckon she's just envious because she didn't think of it. Half the things she complains about are due to her lack of understanding of what is actually being said. I felt quite upset reading it! What vitriol! Unlike her, Professor Boulter is one of the most prominent and well respected Palobiologists there is. Also, he doesn't dispute that a bolide hit the Earth at all, he justs suggests it was a final nail the coffin. It's actually a great book, and well worth reading.

Yup, you have hit the nail on the head. Once scarcity is abolished money/income/wealth become meaningless. So if you like cleaning windows you would be no worse off than a brain surgeon.

Whaddya mean? They were the best years of my life!

Yes, I'd agree. Humans are still to 'selfish' for communism to really work today. However, there's nothing wrong in having high hopes! I also think it should be noted that Marx never intended for communism to be rolled out now. He merely said that it was a stage that humans would eventually reach once we had got through capitalism, followed by socialism. Trouble is, he didn't predict ecological destruction getting in the way!

Professor Michael Boulter says the same thing. His research suggests it's all down to 'self organized criticality'. I think he might very well be right.

Woah! Way 2 go! However, I think our actions in Iraq will do exactly the opposite. I think it more likely it's to create a 'forever war' so that the arms industries can make loadsa money - but hey, that's a different thread!

Good theory there. I think its far more likely than mine!

Lots of people still say 'an historic occassion'. Right or wrong?

Fair point, I should have left them out! Maybe it was more efficient than rollers once you had a smooth surface. I'm sure they knew how to use rollers, I mean they knew that in neolithic cultures. OK, you're not talking about space aliens! I'm not sure these ideas are unworkable. I have seen a TV program where they built a small pyramid using 'ancient' techniques, and the conclusion was that the same techniques would work equally well with larger pyramids. Also, they are pyramidal for a reason - they are the simplest large constructions to build. I bet there's a lot of effort done by the 'loonies' to debunk simple methods of construction. Agreed!

I think Kennedy said something similar: "Ask not what America can do for you, but what you can do for America" Something like that anyway...

I think the point is that you can't have a war against 'terror' or 'terrorism', especially if your actions create more terrorists! We could, perhaps, be engaged in guerilla war with Al Quaeda, but that's really not the same as 'war on terror'. Like John Edwards said, its just a bumper sticker.

Some introduced species drive native species extinct by being more successful in exploiting the same food resource, thus leaving the natives with no food. As far as the native species is concerned that is essentially the same as cutting down the trees that produce the food. Thusly, it has the same effect as your narrow definition of habitat loss.

Indeed! Well said.

Through evolutionary history, the point where one species becomes another is often pretty arbitrary. This is even true of higher taxons. Mammals, for example, are separated by paleontologists from mammal-like reptiles by the dentary squamosal jaw articulation. This 'line in the sand' was, I think, more-or-less made-up.

SkepticLance, I could write a book saying how guns have never killed anyone, and are therefore not at all dangerous. I could show that no-one has ever been killed by a gun. They have not even been killed by bullets. Furthermore, people who have been shot and subsequently died did not even die from blood loss, nor the damage sustained by the bullet. No, because in every case they died due to lack of oxygen to the brain. Obviously, this would be a ridiculous thing to argue, but Lomburg is pretty much using the same type of argument. His interpretation of the stats is meaningless, useless rubbish.

If the bolide impact theory is to believed, the subsequent 'nuclear winter' would have 'killed' most of the plants, all the large herbivores, and all the large meat-eaters. Smaller dinosaurs may have survived on seeds and carcasses, but may have been partially warm blooded, so required both higher levels of food than true reptiles as well as sunshine. The reptiles survived because they do not require much food (being cold blooded) AND can go into torpor for long periods. The birds survived because thry are completely warm-blooded, and insulated with feathers, and highly mobile, and small (so could survive on seeds, carrion, etc). The dinosaurs, being neither truly warm-blooded or truly cold-blooded, died out. That's my guess...

Indeed! Now maybe you are beginning to understand why Lomburg and his pointless ideas can be ignored.

How can you fight 'terror'? How can you fight 'terrorism', which is an abstract noun? It's not a War as it doesn't meet the definition of a war. It's the same as saying War on Want. or War on Drugs. Its just stupid sloganeering.

Yes, but global extinction of a species requires lots of localised extinctions Yes, but for a species to persist there are usually enough individuals to retain a healthy gene pool, unless the species is very resistant to inbreeding. As an example, red squirrels are extinct throughout most of the UK. In Wales we have a few scattered and isolated populations hanging on in coniferous woodlands. These are not viable in the long term, however, as they are small and in time will become too inbred and die off. Also, if these forests were felled the species would go extinct from Wales. They are in the position they are due to habitat loss (essentially) as grey squirrels have stolen their former habitat.

I think I disagree. If I arrive at your house you might not know whether I arrived by bus, car, taxi, bicycle, or walked, however it is not much of a "mystery", and I am sure you wouldn't jump to the conclusion that I arrived by micro-lite, hovercraft, helicopter, flying saucer or teleportation. This "mystery" applies equally to all the other buildings/civilisations I mentioned, not just the pyramids. To me the only mystery to me is why people think it's such a profound mystery:-)! It's not as interesting as the Sphinx, which may actually be 10,000 years old as it appears to be weathered by rain...

It's not a far different argument. I said that DDT was harmful to the environment, you said it was not. The reason why it is harmful is because it is persistent, and is thusly prone to biomagnification along food chains However, at least we more or less agree on this issue now!

Our human emotions didn't emerge from nothing, so applying emotions to certain animals seems as logical as applying emotions to other humans that are not me. Obviously they are likely to be less complex than higher primates, but are still valid, and it would be silly IMHO to ignore them. Re: Better Life - well I did say 'some farming practices' or something like that. Obviously, a beef cow in a field can have a pretty good life, but an intensively raised pig lives an awful life. Re: Human behaviour - it is a lot more natural than most people realise...

Beware of thinking that it's a near impossible feat. The blue stones at stonehenge were transported hundreds of miles by neolithic man, and they were far less advanced than the Egyptians! There are a number of methods that could have been employed and we don't know exactly which one they used - but that's not the same as saying 'we don't know how they built the pyramids". Probably, huge ramps going right around the pyramid were used with logs and ropes and plenty of manpower. It would have been very similar to how the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, and Babylonians built stuff. You are probably right about them being farmers rather than slaves, but the joke about plenty of whips wouldn't have worked!