Essay

Yes, the benefits of competitive advantage may be.... Just today I heard that old "A rising tide lifts all boats" refrain in a talk by Catherine Crier. Except, y'know... most poor people don't have boats. And in fact, most poor people can't even swim! I appreciate the goal of development for the underdeveloped world--but on what terms (short and long term) and for what benefit (short and long term)? This is copied from a previous post, but seems relevant: In a culture where one's honor is framed in terms of family history--perhaps back to the time of a prophet--and where honor may equally be an expression of one's fidelity to a religious ethic and worldview, I'd expect disrupting a culture's long continuity is bound to break some honor codes. Many cultures value a secured honor above material security. Just think of the farmers in India where they are "encouraged" to take out loans for planting Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops (which require large pesticide applications). So when the weather doesn't work out and the yields are too low to pay back the loan, some farmers are attempting suicide by drinking the pesticides. Many who are not killed (...I recently heard up to 3/day, countrywide*), are left paralyzed or with other severe neurological impairments as well as subsequent birth defects and cancers. * ...as well as....http://www.pbs.org/f..._of_suicid.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_suicides_in_India When your family's heritage--the land--is lost, and the future is nothing but increasing debt, then the options quickly narrow. http://www.thecoast....ogizes-to-haiti Thank you Bill, for sharing and working to move beyond this.... AND this is a Global Problem!" ...my added emphasis ... wonder would the following drive some people to the end of their ropes? ...with author's emphasis === ~ p.s. We need to re-evaluate the fundamentals, the basics, the physical commodities... and their dynamics... imho. Hope you caught my last edit, one minute before you posted, in my previous rant.... ~

Which is why "adding" psychology might make things worse, istm. Focusing on physical resources should be the basis of economics; then capital and human resources can be added to the mix--as the icing on a more sustainable cake--individualizing economies to account for local customs and culture.~? I searched some terms and found the broadcasted program: Although it was relevant, the slide I posted above was mistaken for this slide about ecology and economy: -sorry about that edit The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective. 232 pages, Elsevier Science, Academic Press, $75.00 - 95.00, Library-o-Congress Call Number: QK644 .R445 2007 "The Rhizosphere" [meaning the extended root zone--especially in land use]. 2nd edit... A 2003 book highlights this paradigm shift regarding humus and soil carbon:Ecology of Humic Substances in Freshwaters: Determinants from Geochemistry to Ecological Niches by Christian E. W. Steinberg (Hardcover) Publisher: Springer; Date: July 2003; Page Count: 445; ISBN-13: 9783540439226; ISBN-10: 3540439226; Online Price: $229.90: LC Call# = QH541.5 .F7S725 2003 But.... Another question about "econ theories" is whether they apply globally or locally. Local economies may cooperate well and beneficially with each other, but be poorly situated to compete with a larger economy from farther away. ...if you get my drift.... Recently I've been wondering about the wisdom of having 50 states competing with each other to attract old, pre-existing businesses that cater to ageing, over-developed, dwindling markets; while the rest of the world is moving forward more cooperatively to build new businesses focused on developing markets. ~ ?

I'm just now watching a show about economics --comparing "privatization" of water, electricity, railways, and healthcare-- in various countries. Someone on the show just shouted something about neoliberal economics not working. I'm familiar with "modern" economics, from Keynes to Marx, and Hayek to Friedman, and took micro and macro econ classes in college; but.... From a biochemist's ecological/systems point-o-view, WTF are these people talking about? Let's get beyond all of these vague and wholly inadequate definitions and labels and ideologies, and start over again by looking at physical reality. Could we agree to define the word "economy" and agree on what characterizes an "economic theory" first? Technically "economy" translates as "resource management" and you can either have good or bad management it seems. An "economic theory" would be the understanding about (and application of) resource management, it seems to me. === So, do we fully understand our resources; and do we understand the full consequences of managing our resources? With those questions answered, value (of system components) can be determined and a model of management can be constructed. We are still operating from (and trying to fix or modify) theories developed in the 18th & 19th centuries, when our understanding of resources (and behaviour) was very limited and warped. Most models today assume the "market economy" exists as a basic fundamental on which to build a theory. Hello? Where did the market economy evolve from? Answering that question helps get back to the basic building blocks--the resources--the "eco" in economy. === But I'm just a physical science wonk, so maybe this makes no sense to anybody else. I still think it is important to ask what qualifies as an "economic theory" --and what standards must such a theory meet-- and what characteristics should it have to qualify as an economic theory. And if theories are based on different philosophies of humanity and the human condition... ...how do we even recognize a valid economic theory in the first place? Economic theorizing today seems based more upon political ideologies directed at promoting personal worldviews or short-term social control; but not upon long-term resource management. But what was your question again? Oh right, how to disprove.... Very good point!!! We should look at the history of economic theroies not to fix them, but to learn what doesn't work, as we develop new economic theory based upon today's more complete understanding of resource systems and their dynamics. Understanding and management (logos & nomos).... ~imho

Good point, but understanding the man-made contributions helps us to see how the rate and magnitude of change will be very abnormal, and also to understand that we can manage the man-made components of environmental forcing such as ocean acidification, GHG levels, ozone levels, humic balance, etc. It doesn't really matter, but the extra understanding can help improve management. ...

Whoops, I can see how you missed my point that the "Green" Revolution is at the root of many of the problems you mentioned--as well as many other socioeconomic inequities and environmental problems. The slides on this post: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__648760 ...talk about solutions based on new information, which science has discovered just within the past decade, that fulfill many goals with simple land-use techniques. This is an option to evolve beyond the "Green" revolution, which is unsustainable and related to those problems you mentioned. These new paradigms relating to "land use" are not about throwing money at problems, but about teaching new ways to restore and maintain socioeconomic sustainability--achieving the MDGs and "Food Security." And from a 2007 book: "The Rhizosphere" [meaning the extended root zone in land use]. ...in case you missed these quotes above. "We recognize that ultimately the transition to ecologically sound, sustainable food production systems that meet human needs will be complex and will require fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies as well as the application of ecological knowledge to agricultural management." --p.148 ...isn't this what you suggest is needed; fundamental changes...? ~

Huh!?! Right wing Lefties?!? ...not sure about those definitions, but as for the God's-eye view: Life is just God's way of maximizing Entropy; so honorinig our Dominion--Here on Earth--and Stewarding Life Everlastingly, promoting biodiversity and biophilia (as E. O. Wilson suggests), seem to be responsible ethics. There are many ways of viewing reality, whatever it may be; but whatever justification develops, the question of focus upon oneself or upon others--present, past and future generations--remains. You are the nexus for a long chain of consciousness. Give your posterity the same chance to honor their ancestors by also appreciating how far we have advanced and what we have gained. It'd be a shame to lose that. Growth & Development are two complementary processes in life and in natural systems. Civilization might benefit from focusing more upon developing (sculpting & refining) what already has been grown. Our current growth trajectory is not sustainable. Civilization will either move up the evolutionary ladder (Developing, ala Type I Civ.) or fall back to the bottom rung--as is the pattern with all civilizations leading up to our present, global civilization. I guess I'm advocating for intentional development, over continued unwitting growth and abrupt change. === So aside from philosophy, could we just focus on doubling food production while greatly reducing environmental damage? Population and resource pressures (over the next two generations) are sort of like a meteor, which calculations show will eventually cause abrupt problems. We need to focus more on developing long-term resilience, rather than growing short-term gains... as a way to responsibly honor the past struggles, and the present nexus, and ensure future generations. ~

Thanks, Somehow we need to make those problems irrelevant; to move beyond them, rather than overcome them... (or words to that effect). The points about "wars over soil" come when we see losses to erosion, declines in productivity, or land exhaustion. Tropical soils are a unique problem also. The Green Revolution greatly boosted productivity (by circumventing and tricking natural systems), but it also has long-term negative consequences and is unsustainable.... That may have had something to do with the situation you describe; but whatever occurred in the past, a new way forward needs to be established. Land use seems to be at the root of many socio-political and socio-economic, as well as energy and environmental, problems. We just don't have the luxury of solving all our problems individually anymore, so we must find solutions that tackle multiple problems with the fairest/simplest single solutions. Land use provides many opportunities along those lines. ~ISTM

That is neat stuff and very recent! My stuff is up to 5 years old... but could only find this: It is from an old posting and I should read/edit it first, but not now. Sorry if the links don't work or it is irrelevant, but hopefully it will suggest something fruitful. ~Cheers I don't know where I read about this "novel genetic architecture," but I know the video talks about it ...and there are some other sources.... http://www.researchc...D=572&rID=22219 The Changing Human Genome: Implications for Disease and Evolution (1 hr)...Now: http://www.uwtv.org/...spx?dwrid=22219 ?? I did jot down some quotes:...something about a unique (to only a few higher primates) gene "duplication architecture" especially as related to "hotspots that promote recurrent deletion events." &...something about a new view of that ~1% difference between us and chimps--along the lines of "but some regions have changed extremely rapidly." ...referring to that 1% --that has "changed extremely rapidly." This unique "duplication architecture" allows for the original copy to function normally while the duplicate gene can mutate wildly (...who cares, as the original is still functioning normally, eh?)! ===> or, Google: genetic hotspots novel architecture primates http://www.plosgenet...al.pgen.1000840 Refinement of primate copy number variation hotspots identifies candidate genomic regions evolving under positive selection http://genomebiology.com/2011/12/5/R52 Refinement of primate copy number variation hotspots identifies candidate genomic regions evolving under positive selection http://www.nature.co...ll/nrg1895.html Primate segmental duplications: crucibles of evolution, diversity and disease Jeffrey A. Bailey & Evan E. Eichler Abstract: Compared with other mammals, the genomes of humans and other primates show an enrichment of large, interspersed segmental duplications (SDs) with high levels of sequence identity. Recent evidence has begun to shed light on the origin of primate SDs, pointing to a complex interplay of mechanisms and indicating that distinct waves of duplication took place during primate evolution. There is also evidence for a strong association between duplication, genomic instability and large-scale chromosomal rearrangements. Exciting new findings suggest that SDs have not only created novel primate gene families, but might have also influenced current human genic and phenotypic variation on a previously unappreciated scale. & http://www.aspiesfor...d.php?tid=11602 A Hot Spot of Genetic Instability in Autism ===Just think of how lactose tolerance has evolved, as well as... celiac disease/autism connection. There is something about kidney malformations too, along with many digestive conditions, that go along with certain brain developmental problems as a common association; which lends support to this overall idea....Of certain hotspots within the genome, which can change "extremely rapidly." So don't get too constrained by our relatively primitive definitions regarding how genetics might limit our (especially mental and social) evolution. ...and there are epigenetic effects too.... ===> Hope that helps... I'd like to add (but probably shouldn't): The digestive system, termed “The Second Brain” in a book on the subject (though really the gut is the first brain and our brains are secondary…), develops early in embryology. Later during the stages where brain architecture is ongoing, those same genes are re-recruited to further brain development… so it seems. ~

All Totally True. Sure, life has recovered and diversified after many ice ages and even several ocean anoxic events--after many millennia to millions of years. Many of those events even helped accumulate the resources we have come close to exhausting, such as Phosphorus (google: peak phosphorus), during this geologic instant. Many of the easily accessible resources, especially metals, have been depleted; and so future species will not have the advantages of easily accessible "potentials to advance" ...on a technological/industrial level at least... as we did. Though recycling of the shards of our civilization might be possible. As with so many life forms, we do tend to concentrate certain minerals/metals into small geographic areas (or along our infrastructure's arteries) to perhaps someday become rich deposits and veins of ore. Yes, life will go on very well without us, but will there be civilizations or histories to tell? There are several scientifically justified arguments supporting the perspective of our uniqueness in the cosmic scheme. In many ways, and as Holmes Ralston III has illustrated, humanity's attribute of consciousness is the "Third Big Bang" ...after THE Big Bang, and Life (the 2nd big bang)... comes the third big bang: actively self-aware consciousness. It seems that life is easy to start, and is fairly common and enduring throughout the universe. But the luck involved with getting to our level of evolution is much more rare; especially on any one given planet. This is our planet's chance (or one of a few within a fairly short window or set of windows) to take advantage of that sort of "Third Big Bang." What you say is totally true. My previously posted stuff was for those who want to maintain the continuity of this currently emerged "big bang" before the supporting resources are exhausted and we just go the way of other "pre big-bang" species; as if we were no different. And then I guess we wouldn't be, eh? Sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy either way, eh? If we succeed, then we must be special; if not, then not, eh? There is at least one viable way forward, maintaining continuity and emerging into a Type I Civilization (as Michio Kaku suggests), but there are many more non-viable ways forward. I try to discern the dreams of our ancestors, as well as see through the eyes of my childrens' grandchildren, to gain insight and perspective. It is hard to tell if civilization has been worth it. ...but then, there is the Moral Imperative.... ~

If you look at the history of "treatment" for any mental abberations (or physical also) and the common prevalence of infanticide throughout history--until just the past several generations--you might wonder if many autists, aspies, or "idiot-savants" could ever survive to reproductive age... until just the past few generations. The fact that these traits seem to be on a spectrum also lends support to the idea that, once allowed to reach reproductive age, some of those traits might increase in the general population. In fact, since it is just a few generations since this shift in treatment, we might not be surprised to expect a sort of "explosion" in phenotypes. Also.... Many of the genes associated with "autism/Aspism" are located in a chromosomal hotspot currently undergoing increased rearrangement--associated with digestive genes in the same area. There is research on this; if you're interested, I could find that later. What a surprise; evolution in our digestive genes.... Good luck, ~

Good point. Monied interest, whether industrial or military, tend to overwhelm any land-use economic interests. That is why global cooperation is needed; to keep land-use primary in economic interests. If we recognized good productive soil as a valuable commodity, then socioeconomic pressures would shift. Focusing on land use makes people more self-sufficient, and less dependent on the whims and needs of an evil ruler (whether that be a dictator or a corporation). Land use also distributes labor and is a low-profit sector, so there is less pressure or facility for large-scale corruption. Although lately, the financial sector has figured out ways to grab land for investments on a global scale. That sort of "land grab" economic strategy needs to be avoided--through global recognition of land use as a valuable, critical, and necessary ethos for our species. "...fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies...." The Millennium Development Goals and Food Security Steps are not about throwing money at problems; they are about creating sustainable systems. ~

So, from your post: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__648427 === That's a lot to reply to, but.... Yes, you don't get it. Yes, the soils will rapidly degenerate into tropical-type soils. Mycorrhizal fungi will decline and bacterially-mediated processes will come to predominate along with new soil/crop diseases. Leaching will increase nutrient and water loss. Acidity will increase, so metal toxicity will become more of a problem to crops. Etc.... Even with all the excess fertilizer we now use, plants still depend upon naturally fixed soil Nitrogen for almost half of their needs. I don't know why, but that is what has been measured; and if the soils start changing rapidly, our hyper-productive monocultures may encounter problems, istm. I posted that map of global soils, back before Mammals and Grasses generated so much mid-low latitude soil, on post: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__645029 Notice the only temperate soils were away in the polar regions and higher latitudes where dark and light seasonality cycled most strongly. It was only when the world cooled, during the last 30 million years, that temperate soils [w/ mammals & grasses] could advance down into the lower latitudes. Or more accurately, it was as the mammals and grasses created more soil and moved to lower latitudes that the CO2 levels were drawn down to cool the globe enough for the soils to spread farther into the mid and low latitudes. Our temperate soils only evolved within the past 5 to 10 million years, along with honeybees, earthworms, hominids and our cereal crops. Hence the concern about resetting the global CO2 forcer to "more than 30 million years ago" as Deep Time puts it... from the National Academies. === Ummmmmm... If you would like to pick an example of when climate changed faster than now, please do so; and we can talk about it. I still want to go with the comparison with the PETM, from above. What did you say about that? === About the models.... I think they are doing a pretty good job of expressing changes related to altered forcings. Science seems to be of consensus on this; do you have some study that shows otherwise? I realize that models can't tell which region will change what way, but they get the global average fairly accurate, along with points like accelerated Arctic response and greater night-time response, and they seem to account for other forcer quite accurately too, being able to predict changes related to geologic and solar processes. Also from that Deep Time book: "Notably, the deep-time record indicates that the mechanisms and feedbacks in the modern ice-house climate system, which have controlled tropical temperatures and a high pole-to-equator thermal gradient, may not straightforwardly apply in warmer worlds, suggesting that additional feedbacks probaby operated under warmer mean temperatures." --p.9 Right! and... I don't think the models account for a collapse of the ocean food web either, due to acidification; and while I'm sure some new acid-tolerant food web will eventually replace the collapsed web, the models can't predict that now either. An event such as that could precipitate an OAE (ocean anoxic event, which you can google), which could lead us into another glacial advance; but the fact that the models can't predict this--so the models don't "accurately predict" everything--doesn't lead me into complacency. Do you have a specific point, about models, that we could delve into? Otherwise.... === That is a good sentence.You say that: All my worry is based on CO2 being the main driver of the planetary climate.... Basically, this is true; and that also includes radically changing ocean chemistry along with the radical change to atmospheric chemistry. Interestingly, our rains and soils will also experience acidification as carbonic acid concentrations respond to the higher CO2 levels in the sky. Within the long solar cycles and geologic cycles of carbon and continental shifts, there is a see-saw of labile carbon that cycles between the soils and the atmosphere... which is the "main driver" locally--or "internally" on global short to medium time scales--on top of (in response to) Milankovich and other long, "external" or non-local, processes. Rhizosphere slides: ...and note this paradigm shift: & ...30% of GHG emissions come from the land use sector! Regardless of how we describe CO2 as a "driver," what do you expect 4 extra Watts/sq.meter will do--globally, from pole to pole, 24/7/365, decade after decade, and century after century? ...or even 2 extra Watts... or even 1/2 extra Watt (which was the change between the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period after several centuries).... If you think that will be no big deal, here is where we differ! ~

Happy New Year! I'm honored that you were thinking so much about this subject. However, I think the reply to the "soils" part would be off topic here; so I'll reply over on: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__646720 ...where I had posted a reply with a similar focus. === But politically speaking... Why do you go on about "Global Government?" Couldn't we talk about global cooperation, as with the 1987 Montreal Protocol on remediating stratospheric ozone problems; or simply talk about global coordination and monitoring--of strategies to manage our resources more judiciously and pragmatically--i.e., in pursuit of achieving the Eight Millennium Development Goals and Five Food Security Steps? slides: 2, 22, 21... -> -> === ...and 15, 17, 18 -> -> ...AND 4 out of the 5 Food Security Steps! Global education about this--and global cooperation, with this--as a focus for economic development, would help ease competition for resources as the future unfolds (which also might count as MDGs #2 & 8) . I agree that haphazard planning has caused a lot of problems, and it should be avoided as we move forward. I would also advocate for more coordinated, or "planned" progress, as long as there is a level playing field for free enterprise to flourish. I'd prefer to reduce pressures from increasing population and dwindling resources, rather than allow those things to get worse and then need to rely upon military/industrial power to protect and acquire... security/prosperity... ...as a socioeconomic/political strategy (or "planned progress").

To do, or not to do... something, anything, or the right thing; that is the question, eh? Etymology: Economy...from the Greek, Oikos/Nemein Economy: "Eco" = Resources/Environs + "nomy" = Management of.... So a good economy should be based on good management of resources; which should be based on ecology, the study and understanding of our resources. === Imbalances within a complicated carbon cycle seem to be at the root of most or all our problems, due to our historically increasing, though unwitting, management of various carbon pools (resources). We could solve most or all of our problems by intentionally managing the carbon pools, to direct the carbon cycle back into a sustainable and more equable or temperate balance. ...if "we need to do something." ~

Your comment makes it seems as if there is "only one" cycle for warming, which is either on or off, but there are many different ways (cycles) which work to warm/cool the planet. It is the interplay of these many cycles that build a climate. Simply saying that "the cycle is already in motion" makes it seem that there is no way to opt for more responsibility to our species' destiny... or words to that effect: I caught this earlier today.... "Cantore says better forecasts, planning ease pain of year's terrible weather" December 15, 2011 at the National Press Club, which is known as "The Place Where News Happens." Global leaders in government, politics, business, music, film and sport visit the club every day. They speak there at public and private events because the press is there. http://press.org/new...errible-weather [my comments bracketed] It was fun watching him not answer some pointed questions, such as how long can we expect this "warming trend" to continue. He completely avoided the CO2 link--speaking only of recent trends--and avoided pointing out the long-term implications of CO2's effects; how its effects will last for tens of thousands of years. === The point being that, while the weather outside is delightful, we are consigning our species to a future limited to a predominantly tropical climate. Our dominant crops and civilizations are not based on that climate regime, nor are ecosystem-resource services evolved to provide for us in a tropical world. We are compelling our grandchildren to deal with (or "adapt to") tens-of-millions of years of evolutionary pressure, within their own--and their children's--generation. An "instant" in geologic time will experience an unprecedented change. We are resetting the climate thermostat back to conditions that existed before Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, We, or our Cereal Crops evolved. This will be more significant than a "supervolcano" or any meteor impact since 65 Mya, because it will be longer-lasting; and it will be larger than previous atmospheric shifts, at least since the PETM some 55 million years ago. === This is not to be treated as just another "the cycle" similar to regular climate shifts over the past 5 million years, which were occurring while our species and crops evolved; this is different! As mentioned, Scientific American has some good information. For instance, to compare our current situation with the PETM.... "The Last Great Global Warming Lee R. Kump; Scientific American 305, 56 - 61 (2011) Published online: 14 June 2011; doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0711-56 http://www.nature.co...711-56_BX1.html Ask any evolutionary biologist, soil scientist, or tropical epidemiologist, if they think--on balance--that'll be a good or a bad thing. ...or maybe somebody could explain the more detailed picture to Dennis Miller.

TresJ, what a good idea. I'll try to catch up: Sports! ...and sports in the educational system too... has that weird arms-race of pay scales that leads to so much corruption (or facilitates so much corruption). But yes, it does seem a bit over-hyped for the actual "contribution" to society. Though I bet the actual players don't "love" the constant training, injuries, and pressures of being on top; so they do need to get a lifetime of pay within just a decade or so (but not 20-400 lifetimes of pay).... The problem seems to be how we assign value to a particular job/career/profession. Why don't we value refuse collectors more (or value refuse more)? And why did sports become so highly valued? It would be an interesting historical study, and I can already imagine some perspectives involving "American Exceptionalism" ...but that is another topic. === My idea is to value things differently too. Money itself probably shouldn't be a commodity, and other things that are not viewed as "commodities of value" probably should be. It is that mismatch between the "true" value of commodities (and jobs) and the "perceived" value, that causes our economy to be unbalanced and unjust. We need to figure out what the "true" value of stuff is, eh? Something I noticed recently was the etymology of the word economy. "Eco" is from the Greek word, Oikos, which means house (literally), or "resources" in general. "Nomy" is from the Greek word, Nemein, which means "accounting for" or "management of" whatever the word is modifying. So "Economy" means the management of our resources, similar to how "Ecology" means the study of our resources. ...And when you look at how we manage our resources, is it any wonder that our "economy" is skewed and unjust? So I advocate for valuing things differently, in the hopes that will help "fix" the economy. We need to recycle everything, and especially focus on the resources close to "peak" harvesting. We need to more fully account for resources/products, from cradle to grave, and to account for their ongoing effects, displaced effects, and "true" environmental costs. Of course the big question is how do we decide what "true" really is? Ecology, the study of those resources, will help us more fully understand how the resources should be valued. Science can help us establish a more sustainable economy. That imho is where the "truth" of value will be discerned. === But let me catch up with the rest of the posts here: Immortal, yes--social media may help us evolve beyond a "representative democracy" and beyond a management system based on 19th-century models. Phi, all good points--and I'd add that some "civic duties" should be required of those getting a subsistence stipend; and also they should accrue some "social credits" in order to receive extra health care--above the minimum required to maintain a public-health standard. I'm sure that sounds very "intrusive," but I'm picturing "self-directed" service. Our education system should be updated to at least teach about the wide array of services that provide civic enhancement, such as taking care of one's neighborhood, elder neighbors, house, yard, garden, compost, trash, diet, health, etc., in addition to all the formal ways of "volunteering" time. But don't get me started.... ajb, Doctors! There must be some way to distribute all that responsibility and supplemental work; maybe by integrating the medical system into community business and educational networks they could.... But I'd like to hear from doctors about this and that. JW, I think it is about redistribution of opportunity, not property or wealth; those just follow naturally as more people benefit from working that opportunity. Phi, Yes! Electing people who want to drown govt. in the bathtub, and then complaining about ineffective govt. does seem a bit myopic. Nowadays we hear about the "growth" of govt., which is of course relative to our shrinking GDP--as well as not considering the huge growth associated with the Dept. of Homeland Sec. But sure, lets cut some more food inspectors to shrink big gov., ...(i'm saying sarcastically).... MTM, Sound good! And I'd add a microtax on all of those computerized advantage-taking programmed trades that buy and sell in short term investment excursions. ...or words to that effect. TresJ, We are moving towards a "credit economy" and away from a money-based system. You should read "Debt: the first 5 thousand years" by David Graeber, or just search for some summaries. He has a good overview on CSPAN's BookTV, which is available online too. Cap'nPanic, Good points. And we need to increase jobs in "useful" sectors! As for the financial sector, I agree they dominate too much and need reducing. But it would be a problem to simply "cut" them in half since they contribute most to our GDP. They are what keeps our economic momentum going at this point. It is not right, but it is current reality. We need to build up other sectors also, which will reduce the relative size of the financial sector too. As it is, they are building the financial house-o-cards even higher these days; nothing much seems to have changed. TresJ, There is also a new book out called, "America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy" which highlights the movements toward local, sustainable economies (networked and coordinated on regional and national scales). Well, that is enough catching up. In general Western economies are based on consumerism. Maybe we need to add a component of "service" to our economy (and I don't mean servicing rich people with consumer services). We need to find value in servicing the rest of the developing world, helping them develop into a sustainable socioeconomic system that will make the whole world a better place in the future (hence the value in pursuing that strategy). IMHO. Working on the 8 Millennium Development Goals and the Five Food Security Steps should be a valued service, and should at least be worth credits toward SocialSecurity or HealthCare (or their equivalents), if not worth pay for industrial or intellectual research, development, and production/implementation. As carbon-based life forms, living in a carbon-based agriculture/energy economy, why don't we value carbon more highly? I agree with this quote from a 2007 book: "We recognize that ultimately the transition to ecologically sound, sustainable food production systems that meet human needs will be complex and will require fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies as well as the application of ecological knowledge to agricultural management." – p. 148 THE RHIZOSPHERE: An Ecological Perspective Also, in last month's SciAm.... The Five Food Security Steps ! ...what could be of more value? Thanks for asking!

...just the OP quoted.

Yep! Which is why focusing on solutions that help indigenous peoples, and also promote and ensure the Millennium Development Goals and Food Security Steps, is critical. ~

Somehow!?! Well, there is your problem. You don't see how "temptation" is simply the neglect of that responsibility for our dominion in Eden. You seem to think temptation is something external, somehow coming from a "satanic" source; but it is not external. It could simply be the lack of harmony with "the way" or "the path," oneness or godheadness or godliness--the dominion we have a responsibility (choice) to sustain. ~imho

**__** Really? Do you mean to suggest that progress toward social "consolidation" or "organization" has always been bad, or that it should not be attempted now or in the future (at least until your "psycho minority" has been neutralized)? === And please! Your oversimplified characterization of the "Noble Savage" is problematic. Please read "Vestal Fire" and "1491" or at least a summary of these; or even the much shorter "Changes in the Land" or "Larding the Lean Earth" to get a more realistic picture of how indigenous land managers blindly evolved while struggling to develop sustainable practices. There is no "magic" to those noble folks, only the collected, even if partial or erratic, wisdom of successful survivors. Science could still "tease out" reasons, meaning, and significance, to learn from this dwindling, endangered resource. === Land managers (whether indigenous or not) are key to our problem and our solution. It is the soils (amplified by axial tilt) that gives us our present-day seasons--evolved since the tropical world of the Eocene. The developing soils were a large part of the greatly increasing biodiversity of that era. Y'see the key is soil carbon, and its evolution over the past 50 Myr. The rise of soil carbon (associated with the rise of temperate soils) drew down much of the atmospheric carbon--cooling the climate. Are you familiar with the paradox of tropical rainforests; and how all of the nutrients are locked up in the biomass above ground, while the soils are nutrient poor? Picture that on a global scale.... Tropical soils hold much less carbon than temperate soils, so in a tropical world (50Mya) the carbon stayed actively cycling between the biomass and the atmosphere. Do you see how the grasses and mammals co-evolved to spread the temperate soils from the highest latitudes down to the mid and lower latitudes? This was a major factor that cooled the climate over the past 50 Myr, allowing the polar caps to form and bring cold and warm seasonality to our temperate regions. In a tropical world, without polar caps, the only "temperate" regions are in the higher latitudes. You'd get long-day seasons, and short-day seasons that were cooler on average, but you wouldn't get drastic swings in winter and summer temperatures--or day/night temps either. [slide #38] …before temperate soils came to predominate, which itself was… ...long before Earthworms, Honeybees & Hominids Evolved. Just google: seasonality in the Eocene Or: http://www.nature.co...ature08069.html "Increased seasonality through the Eocene to Oligocene transition in northern high latitudes" ...or google: seasonality in the Miocene http://www.ucmp.berk...ary/miocene.php The Miocene Epoch, 23.03 to 5.3 million years ago, was a time of warmer global climates than those in the preceding Oligocene or the following Pliocene and it's notable in that two major ecosystems made their first appearances: kelp forests and grasslands. The expansion of grasslands is correlated to a drying of continental interiors as the global climate first warmed and then cooled. ....A mid-Miocene warming, followed by a cooling is considered responsible for the retreat of tropical ecosystems, the expansion of northern coniferous forests, and increased seasonality. With this change came the diversification of modern graminoids, especially grasses and sedges. ....Because the positions of continents in the Miocene world were similar to where they lie today, it is easiest to describe the plate movements and resulting changes in the paleoclimate by discussing individual continents. === Cool, huh? ...and speaking of grasslands... and cooling.... The evolution of an extra, large, soil-based carbon reservoir--for that actively cycling carbon--is an interesting function for those recently evolved, temperate soils. For one thing it limited tropical diseases, and for another it limited competition with many of our cereal crops. Cool... and cooler.... === But about focusing upon the future, over current problems (while my focus currently addresses most millennium development goals and food security steps); yes, I am more concerned about long-term resilience, compared with short-term profit, comfort, security or sanctity. My reasoning is that anyone with an understanding of the scientific view of our future owes it to humanity to share that capability. Specifically, I think it would be too selfish to focus only upon today's problems--for which there is plenty of responsibility to assign and ongoing work to solve--while ignoring a looming problem that will affect our species' future much more drastically than any of today's problems, and for which there is too little responsibility being taken or ongoing work to solve. It's like that "impending asteroid impact" analogy; wherever there is a small percentage of folks who scientifically grasp the significance of a prediction, there should be a correspondingly large percentage of effort directed to convey that significance. There are so few who can appreciate the breadth and depth to the ramifications devolving from these scientific revelations about how the future will unfold. I would rather just work and enjoy the nice weather, but history invested much in my education and is owed some return (plus there are my kids to worry for). It only seems fair that those few who can understand the science should also work to validate their civilization's investment. === What will 30 million years of change, occurring over our grandchildren's lifetime, do to the planet and our civilization? I can't predict anything with certainty, but I can with certainty predict problems greater than we face today. Are you seriously trying to argue, that since life was "burgeoning" 30 million years ago, it'll be fine to impose 30 million years of environmental change onto the lifetime of our grandchildren?

JohnB, I also find it hard to follow the rationale of the COP frameworks that .... ...Wait! What? World Government?!? How does global cooperation translate into "world government?" A generation ago, when governments cooperated to set a baseline limiting the industial effects on stratospheric ozone, did that lead to a world government? Why would it now? In the same way that the American people demanded guiding limits to harness the excesses of American industrialization back in the early 1900's, the global population is now increasingly demanding guiding limits to harness the sustainability of global development and avoid the new excesses of industrialization and financialization, injustices that derive from growth-fueled income disparities, and long-term degradation and/or exhaustion of resources simply to subsidize short-term growth. ...or words to that effect.... === A global microtax on automated, high-speed, computerized, short-term financial transactions could raise hundreds of billions of dollars for compensating the rape of global and indigenous resources. Europe (except for the Brits) are advocating for such a fund--though simply to "insure" the financial sector. But an "environmental development fund" would be a fair use of such a levy on financial excesses imho. Sure, there would be arguments over who, how, where, what, etc. should benefit; but does that constitute a world government? === The only thing--other than global action/inaction on managing climate--more deterministic of civilization's future, would be a large asteroid predicted to collide with our planet. In that case, global cooperation and resources directed into space-based research should be the priority. Whatever the problem with our local environment happens to be (asteroids, or acidification via CO2), we should focus our abilities on the management of that problem. === Indigenous land- and biomass- managers should be the most highly valued people on the planet. That is not to say they must be paid the most cash, but they should be afforded the most consideration and accomodation. And science is now in a position to tease out the wisdom of their old ways. Just once in the course of human history, can we try to avoid repeating the rapacious patterns leading to so many rise'n'fall, or boom'n'bust, cycles? Can we learn from history or are we doomed to repeat it? We've reached the point where that cyclical pattern of civilization will now occur on a global scale, instead of just locally or regionally. We've also reached the point where we are capable of global understanding and management. What a coincidence! Just at the time when our fate will be determined by globally-acting forces, our species has attained a global consciousness and capability. Politics: What will we do? === JohnB, it's not fear--re: your comment, "Out of curiousity, and since change is actually the normal state for the climate, could you explain to the hypothetical alien how somebody made you afraid of it? Are you afraid of night following day as well? Or Summer following Winter?" How long have we had the 4-5 regular seasons? How long since these continents seen anything but seasons of light and dark (depending on latitude), instead of the wonderful variety of warm and cool seasons that drive the formation of temperate soils in the lower latitudes? [slide #37] ...before earthworms, honeybees and hominids (and seasons?) evolved. It is not "fear" of climate change. It is grief for the loss of so much potential, which civilization has struggled to bring forward to this point, that will be lost so quickly over the next several generations. Our children will see this, through their grandchildren's eyes, and that is to be grieved. ~

Hey! Thank you for letting me know I'm not the only one seeing those spires! For years I've been asking people about those, only to get blank looks when I'd try to describe the little frozen jet-spike. It's been 20 years since I've made icecubes regularly; but I recall these things, and your picture is entirely consistent with many of the trays that I pulled out of the freezer back then. I pondered and experimented a bit, and I don't think it depends upon distilled water. The icecube tray itself is crucial to fostering this phenomenon, it seemed to me. While your tray is different from mine, it does contain the features which I felt were decisive in promoting this "jet spiking" behaviour. That feature is the depression of the dividers at the intersection of the individual icecube compartments. This allows a frozen skin to form over the surface (before the sides or bottom freeze) if the water level is adjusted so that a continuous surface, which connects all (or many adjacent) of the icecube compartments, inundates those depressions at the intersections of the compartments. That very thin layer of water (covering the depressions/intersections) freezes much sooner than any other part of the water volume, and this leads to a thin skin forming over the entire water volume that would not be able to form if each cube were isolated. If the cubes weren't connected by that thin intersection, then the sides and bottom would freeze concurrently with the surface. But with the "seed" of frozen water at each intersection, the surface could freeze long before the sides and bottom cooled enough to solidify. Later when the lower part freezes and expands, water in the center that is super cooled is expelled as a jet through a flaw in the surface--freezing in mid air. Notice the little trail of teeny air bubbles that have been dragged up the center of the spire? It looks as if your tray was half empty, and then the empty cells were refilled with water; and it was one of those refilled compartments that jet-spiked. Is that correct? I ask because the cubes (in focus) behind the spire seem larger and freeze-fractured, whereas the foreground cubes seem smooth, smaller, and unfractured. I noticed over the years that they always very close to the angle that yours seems to be--about 70 degrees-- or some 15 to 25 degrees off of the perpendicular? I never did any measurements; but it was definitely more that 45 degrees, and much more like 60 degrees or more. As I recall they point toward the center of the tray, rather than to the outside; and the base is never in the center of the cube' surface, but originates about halfway between the center and an outside corner or whatever compartment happens to spring a leak. === I just read the other thread from '09. Sorry I missed that, but I hope this (above) helps. My trays looks like the blue one in the other thread [link above: Thanks Phi!]. The point is... it has the depressions at the intersections of the compartments which favor the formation of an early ice-skin on the surface, if the water level is adjusted within certain limits. The lower the water level--but of course still high enough to connect all adjacent cells--the more likely you are to get a spiking event, from my experience. I think I always used tap water, so the distilled aspect shouldn't affect this phenom. But hey, with today's neat digital cameras, maybe somebody could get a shot of one forming. I'm sure they form almost instantly, so a high speed camera might be needed to get a decent shot. Enjoy! ~ google search: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/icespikes/icespikes.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_spike http://www.inspirations-in-ice.com/ http://www.inspirations-in-ice.com/gridrdate.php {artistic photos of (modified?) spikes} !!! http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~smorris/edl/icespikes/icespikes.html {with videos of growing spikes}!!! !!! ~

Agreed! ...Or perhaps lithium would be more effective. But lets give this a try.... What are any of your axioms (that you use for your model)? What do you know of the axioms for the current model? Does your model account for change in insolation at 65o N. Latitude? The current model includes this as a trigger for changing glacial regimes. How does your model differ (in that aspect of changing insolation) from the current model?

The prebiotic soup may have been helped along (in very interesting ways) by UV radiation. But clearly, once DNA became critical to the continuity of life, it needed some protection from the ionizing effect of UV radiation. [my comment] If there is something to take advantage of, life seems to finds a way.... But I can't find any info on life directly using UV light to get energy, i.e.: http://plankt.oxford...23/12/1373.full I just wanted to post this, about the protective value of humus; but I'm curious about algae using UV. I'll appreciate any examples. Thanks ~

Yes, hence my point about not basing GW theory on short-term weather or temp trends. Mostly I'm concerned about how our present biodiversity will cope with a radically changing, "teeming" world. Bacteria and Fungi will be teeming too, y'know; if not teaming up to co-opt our monocultural agrosystem for food production. It's not about returning to glacial conditions, but it is about maintaining the "near glacial" conditions, which sustain the biodiversity that evolved over the past 5 million years.=== But thanks for that picture! I'm now using it in my "new paradigms in the carbon cycle" presentation. It is very catchy. However, I think India had hit Asia by ~40 Mya, so that neat global map/picture must be of around the PETM time, 50+ Mya; though your point about how the continents affect currents and weather is still perfectly valid. They especially affect weather patterns within any given climate mode, but not as much as a "unipolar" world [which your picture/link illustrates] will directly determine a climate mode. And just 20 Mya, in a Miocene world (this wiki picture), the climate was dominated by "unipolar glaciation." "The deep-time record uniquely archives the processes and feedbacks that influence the hydrological cycle in a warmer world, including the effect of high-latitude unipolar glaciation or ice-free conditions on regional precipitation patterns in lower latitudes." -p.10 (Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate Future (2011) National Academies Press) http://www.nap.edu/o...record_id=13111 ~(Free to Read!!) ...and remember: "By the end of this century, without a reduction in emissions, atmospheric CO2 is projected to increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years." --p.5 === Also, re: "Sources" about "tropical" vs. "temperate" soils (& the ability of our C4 cereal crops to continue growing productivly); and btw.... "Thirty millions years" worth of change to our atmosphere puts it long before our agricultural crops evolved. Do you think our crops will adapt (especially in the "third world") within just a century? http://www.jstor.org.../10.1086/515906 Stepwise Climate Change Recorded in Eocene-Oligocene Paleosol Sequences from Central Oregon "The change from Ultisol-like paleosols formed in near-tropical climate to Alfisol-like paleosols formed in subtropical climate between 42.8 and 43 Ma corresponds to a global cooling trend after the mid-Eocene climatic optimum. The Eocene-Oligocene boundary (~34 Ma) is marked by the change from subtropical Ultisol-like paleosols to Alfisol-like paleosols formed in temperate humid climate. Global cooling during the mid-Oligocene (~30 Ma) is reflected in a change from non-calcareous, Alfisol-like paleosols to calcareous Andisol-like paleosols formed in sub-humid temperate conditions. These mid-Tertiary paleosol sequences are evidence of stepwise terrestrial climate change that was strongly coupled with marine events." I wonder if sending our atmosphere back 30 million years will lead to any "marine events." ...but also.... http://en.wikipedia....story_of_plants "The latest major group of plants to evolve were the grasses, which became important in the mid Tertiary, from around 40 million years ago. The grasses, as well as many other groups, evolved new mechanisms of metabolism to survive the low CO2 and warm, dry conditions of the tropics over the last 10 million years." I'm sure you can imagine how the rise to dominance of the Grasses (& Mammals/ruminants), over the past few tens-of-millions of years, has produced vast amounts of "modern" temperate soil. ....Then 5 Mya, when the glacial cycling began, the soils... fire... agriculture... the "Green Revolution," "Dead Zones," & nitrogen over-use... ...and so, here we are today! "Marine events" can be affected by both temperature and pH, y'know; both strongly linked to CO2 levels. If we don't mitigate this CO2 problem down to a manageable level, it seems we won't have a chance to adapt. ~