Sayonara

Again I apologise for the long delay - things are very busy here at the moment. What I am questioning is how you propose to reconcile this with your earlier comments about biodiversity, with which it seems to be at odds. Also you seem to be moving the goal posts... for the sake of clarity, what exactly did you mean by "mind our own ecological business"? This is a false dilemma. There is an entire spectrum of potential middle ground which you are choosing not to consider.

The only reason we need for justifying a permanent moon base is that it will prove to us that we can achieve it, and encourage consideration of superior feats.

I strongly suggest that you don't assume I am in that group. I am quite aware of the foundations of my beliefs, thanks all the same. No. That was your inference, and it was not what I was saying. I seem to recall stressing several times that some of the example choices given in the thread were arbitrary value judgments. On the contrary, it can give you plenty of reasons why you should or should not do such things. The problem is that if you change the scope of the problem, the number of whys and why nots increases, and many of them conflict. A scientific approach is not a magic bullet, but it is better than nothing. How can you mind your own ecological business and yet manage ecological processes, at the same time? They're your words, you do the showing how.

Casting pearls before swine...

From the youtube comments: The thing about Microsoft and Sony is that Microsoft make sure they give their developers the entire spec way in advance, and make sure they know how to use it, so that they can get their lead titles out with (or close to) the console launch. Sony, on the other hand, move with patience and care. They have consistently shown with the PS platform family that the best titles will not all be squished next to the launch date. You will not see the PS3 hardware being really pushed to its limits by game developers for about a year.

Yes, when you chop off half the sentence so that it means something completely different, it is bound to look a bit silly. Congratulations - you just lost all credibility. For those not paying attention, what I actually said was "Consider that no other species in history has had both the capacity to compete or predate other species into extinction or husbandry to the extent that we do". Which is, as far as we are aware, entirely true. I am using VERY simple and VERY well-established ecological concepts, and I am applying them correctly. Errr... no. If you are going to try and tell me what I "believe", you need to show compelling evidence. Since I am strictly agnostic I could not care less. You have not been listening, have you? What I have demonstrated is the need for better understanding of systems before we interfere with them. Your arguments so far have been inconsistent, and you have attempted to justify your belief using the very ecological principles that explain why it's a bad idea. I on the other hand have provided an internally consistent argument based on solid ecological principles. Now we have come to a place where your only counter-point is to call my reasoning "unscientific" and "religious". If you are not done yet, please stick to using ecological arguments to show how your plans for humanity are sustainable. If you have no more ecological arguments left, kindly concede with good grace. I think it is worth noting at this point that in the last paragraph of yours that I quoted above, it is possible to reconcile both of our arguments by adding "...as long as we first ensure we have adequate understanding of the systems we affect" to the end of it. It's also worth noting that your overall point appears to have changed a couple of times during this discussion, which is shifting the goal posts. Arguing for humans to "manage natural processes", for example, seems to be incompatible with the idea of humans "minding their own ecological business". It helps if you propose/defend one proposal at a time, or at least arrange them in a structured fashion.

Janeway had a scrap with some macroviruses in one of the Jefferies Tubes.

It would certainly appear from his last post that ParanoiA is finally beginning to see what our issue is.

It's about time carrying capacity came into this conversation

Yes, I see what you are saying. But I suppose the idea is that if you aren't "doing hate speech" then the laws don't really affect you.

What's so special about the latter is that it potentially could be more damaging than all the other factors put together, but - uniquely - we as a species have the mental capacity and the physical means to do something about it. Consider that no other species in history has had both the capacity to compete or predate other species into extinction or husbandry to the extent that we do, and likewise no other species in history has had the ability to analyse the consequences of such actions or appreciate why they might not be such a good idea. It is all very well saying that ecosystems change all the time - that's completely true, after all. But we can't always model the effects of our actions on ecosystems because our species and its behaviours are so vastly removed from everything else in the biosphere. And that makes interference dangerous for us, as well as for other species. You don't need to go far to see examples of this in the real world. It is possible to integrate the paddy and the existing wetland in a fashion that maintains diversity, however a venture such as this is likely to be motivated by either money or hunger, and the participants are not likely to want to invest the time and resources in protecting other species that they do not value. That is the kind of thinking that I am challenging here. Understand that I am not saying it "does not happen that way", I am saying we need to stop doing things that way. There are always alternatives. In the paddy example, there is absolutely no need for a species as sophisticated as ours to use existing wetland in order to grow rice. We are capable of creating artificial environments through the use of technologies such as hydroponics. Unfortunately such achievements are not always possible, but where they are possible I fully advocate their use in order to mitigate our impact on diversity. As a species, we have the ability to make it work. As different nations, some rich, some poor, it's going to be very difficult. Additionally, a lot of the ecological arguments for current human behavioural ecology patterns fall apart rapidly, for two reasons: Firstly, as I have already mentioned, as a species our interfaces with other systems are so bizarre and unlike anything else that our models simply don't account for them. Predictions, therefore, are understandably unreliable. Secondly, we are so far beyond our equilibrium population that we pose a significant threat to everything around us (and increasingly to ourselves) - we are, make no mistake, a plague upon this planet. That is an excellent point, and one which I do not think is often considered in discussions such as this. People have a tendency to focus in on quite small space or time spans in ecological discussions, and as a result highly significant factors like this can often be overlooked.

The links point to a blog post from last month, and a news article from 2005, so I am guessing this blogger posted it now simply because it was the first time he had seen it. You'll have to clarify the question. As far as I am concerned, he can believe whatever he likes. But incitement to kill and aggravating racial hatred are crimes in the UK. I can't. What exactly is he whining about?

If he were in the UK he would have been arrested for that. The guy delivered a hate speech, and as such very much placed his neck on the block for anyone to take a swing at. There is a comment on the blog page which reads "these comments were made last year, why is he suddenly in the news?" Any ideas?

I am not saying we should promote biodiversity, as that is affirmative action which I am warning against as much as I am warning against negative action. What I am saying is that we should take steps to not alter biodiversity through anthropogenic stimuli. The reason for this - and the importance of biodiversity - is that biodiversity is both the product and indicator of an ecologically strong and intrinsically healthy habitat. Not only does declining biodiversity indicate a drop in the stability of a system, but it also increases the pressures on that system that prevent recovery. I am not advocating that we take steps to isolate and preserve habitats on a whim. I am saying that we need to be more aware of our effects on ecological systems, so that we can make more informed decisions about which ones actually need remedial or control actions from us. Yes, but at the same time you must acknowledge that our biocultural status is absolutely unique on this planet. We are in a position to do massive damage to other species, damage that would fall into the "abiotic" ecological category, damage which may remain undetected, and damage that can come from both negligent behaviour or from misguided attempts to "help". If they had the capability to appreciate and understand things like biodiversity or trophic nets, one would hope that they would come to realise their ability to "mind their own survival and reproduction" relies on having a sound ecological relationship with the other species in their habitats and biosphere. Well yes, it does actually. Ecology deals with species interfaces, habitat and system structure (i.e. inter-relations), and the related aspects of inter-specific population dynamics. You seem to be disregarding those pesky elements as and when it suits you, which I am finding difficult to fathom. Are we discussing ecology or not? If humans stick their heads in the sand and mind their own "ecological business", as it were, there will be nothing left on which our species can support itself in virtually no time. Which can hardly be said to be the best thing for ecosystems and biodiversity as a whole, unless one's idea of the ultimate ecosystem is a planet populated with dying humans.

See signature...

That would be so awesome. 36 sheets of paper: $0.03 Toner costs: $0.01 Getting an "...and finally...": Priceless There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's the Hoffmeister

Don't press any buttons. That's my top tip.

I think I would find it difficult to choose between them - they are both firm favourites for different reasons.

I was under the impression the dead outnumber the living about 30:1

Out of curiosity, how much does 50g of uncut emerald go for these days?

Bear in mind this poll was originally posted over a year before the new BSG was released... those people who had voted already could not change their vote to BSG when the option was added, no matter how much they wanted to! BSG is THE DADDY.

Not to mention writing your own chrome specifications. Try doing that with a closed source.

But it is not the standard now, and even if it becomes a de facto standard through sheer market force that does not behove other developers to follow suit. Looking obsolete is not the same as being obsolete. Hiding the menu system that you have been training people to become accustomed to for the better part of two decades is a massive gamble in terms of usability, and it remains to be seen - by a LONG way - if it will pay off in any way.

Awesome Freak.

You have four names! You know there are some kids in Africa who only have one?