Essay

http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/3540385770 I enjoyed this book [Predatory Prokaryotes] recently, and the terminology in the first part of "your post" [their postings] sounds similar. They are not making up funny names or silly words. In the middle of "your post," it sounds a bit flakey. Some things sound wrong (or a bit pseudosciencey), but they still make sense in relation to the topic and other terminology. At the end of "your post," things sound like a different discussion (with a unique perspective), but it is still based on real science. === They may be wrong (or overselling a perspective) occasionally, but they aren't clowns spouting gibberish. I'm sure this is very interesting and enlightening for those involved. I'm intrigued, but it won't change where we are now and i'm too busy to follow up. It was nice to hear of bdellovibrio and the purple nonsulfurs again, though; thanks! [re: their comments or general direction....] I'd suggest that "cooperative evolution" may have been more prevalent during the earliest stages of evolution--even as early as between the first cell and the last universal ancestor; however "competitive evolution" would become more prevalent after the basic biochemistry was settled. See: Koch, "Bacterial Growth & Form" http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/0412028719 ...or google, "between the first cell and the last universal ancestor" to read: http://books.google....id=7lLQeFRgIgUC ...or: http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1402032056 The Bacteria: Their Origin, Structure, Function and Antibiosis By Arthur L. Koch === ...It's like having your own time machine. ~

So when--in another generation or so--a computer can tell us the proper way to run our planet sustainably and prosperously, will enough remain of our resources and ecosystem services and even complete ecosystem components in order to reorganize the system as recommended? If the remaining components, services, and resources are too limited, then the only viable option will be some sort of police state. If we want to have any sort of happy prosperity, instead of an enforced and regulated prosperity, then we should hope enough latitude remains (in the environmental parameters) upon which the computer can perform its singular processing. In other words, if some computer can eventually "restore our direction," then we should hope our "spaceship earth" is ready for a fantastic voyage. We need to work hard avoiding a future ferried forward by the tattered remnants of a once robust planet, incapable of launching on any but the most limited of voyages. We slowly begin learning what are the "limits of complexity" for our biogeochemo-based socioeconomic system. We thus reform our future, clumsily, each day anew... because already: The singularity is here! ~

http://en.wikipedia....cal_singularity Seriously!? "...one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis." Well, so much for all that "certainty" that the free-marketers are clamouring for. "...leading to "technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history".(Kurzweil 2001)" Is this meant to sound like a good thing? "Presumably, a technological singularity would lead to rapid development of a... Type I civilization ...one that has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet." I hope this means that a technological singularity will enable a humanitarian singularity. That sounds like a more sensible, practical perspective on the singularity's value. ~

That seems a bit hyperbolic. My memory was that, when development became apparent as a solution for reigning population growth in, development was pushed as a very welcome alternative to the very debatable ethics of, as you say, "if necessary, compelling people to stop" ...anything. They did a horrible job of it, since they were focused on their own profits instead of sustainability in the local culture; and they made matters worse in many situations, as Bill Clinton acknowledged during recent testimony (re: Haiti, IMF, rice) in Congress. But the quotes above, from that 2009 book, suggest a new path for development. Development can focus more on sustainable practices and systems, while also creating value. We may... but it sounds as if most sources say it's not too late. Are you saying we should do something "compelling" now, just because "we may have to face the prospect" it's too late? I was heartened to see your enthusiastic comprehension of the Gaia perspective, but I don't see why you laser in on this one aspect of the picture instead of the broader aspect of resource use (or abuse). Meat consumption in China has doubled and will triple, and that affects our resources much more than the absolute numbers of folks--don't you think? Plus there are many programs up and running effectively to keep the population curve on track to continue levelling out. Even if we get the population down to 4 billion, if they all use resources as is done currently in the US, we'll still be screwed! It seems that what the people do, and whether it is sustainable or not, is more important than how many people there are, so I'm focusing on modifying resource use. And unlike the dimension of population.... Resources, and their cycles, offer an unlimited opportunity for science to dissect, examine, understand, and manipulate; so that we can, ...as E. O. Wilson suggests, aspire to be as good as nature. Does that seem logical? ~

Isn't that more like bsuiness as usual? I would think a better analogy would be remodelling a house now, based on the assumption income would be fixed (or decline) in the future. But whichever.... === Well, that's because we are behind schedule on the 8MDG. I'm not sure what you might mean by "fertility reduction," but.... Are you aware of how pursuing the 8MDG would be a good way to reduce population growth? ...of how empowering women always seems to moderate population growth, and that... "There is a strong interconnection of women's empowerment to all the eight MDG goals." -from a newspaper link w/ pop-ups, philstarDOTcom, July 2010. Well, that is a fairly lame citation, but there is lots of info at:http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml The eight MDGs break down into 21 quantifiable targets that are measured by 60 indicators. Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Goal 5: Improve maternal health Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development === But I still think that regardless of the population, 2 or 12 billion, we need to manage our resources better if we want to enjoy the future. ~

Gosh, thanks Greg. I continue to work locally on this stuff. ...hoping people will see the big picture; how ecology is connected with economy, and how our past is connected with our future. But aside from the semantics of "infinite" or steady-state.... === I heard (and operate assuming) we have enough resources to easily handle about 9 billion; but it's a matter of better management of those resources. So I focus more on improving resource use, rather than reducing a population that is already headed in the right direction to stabilize at around 9 billion. Lots of people are doing a good job on that front. Women's education, and all of the 8 Millennium Development Goals are helping on that front. This, Population Services International, looks like a good group: http://www.psi.org/ What I don't see is a better management of our resources. In fact we are scrambling to solve short-term problems by squandering even the remaining resource stability. ...or words to that effect. So.... Whether it is 2 or 9 billion people in another generation or so, it won't be a pretty picture if we don't learn to better manage the whole system--especially the free, natural ecosystem services. It has only recently become apparent that biosphere stability is linked to climate stability; and it is even less well known that soil is a major sector of, and an active player in, the biosphere. Management of soil has a history of affecting the course of civilizations, and I think any global level of civilization will similarly depend on propitious management of our soil resource. I also think propitious management of soil could (should?) be the basis for a sustainable economy. I read this recently, and it seems to sum up my perspective fairly well: "Mitigating climate change through food and land use" Author: Scherr, Sara J. Published: 2009 Format: Books Call Number: S589.7 .S337 2009 http://discovery.lib...cord/.b32717519 On discussing the large (15%-40%) government subsidies for intensive agricultural production, they mention: I would rewrite that last paragraph to read: Many of the actions most needed for creating sustainable land-use systems will also significantly help us adapt to climate change and significantly mitigate greenhouse gas problems, as well as bringing positive benefits for water quality, air pollution, smoke-related health risks, soil health, the food web, global food production and nutrition, energy efficiency, wildlife habitat, and overall biodiversity. These tangible benefits can generate much broader political and socioeconomic support for climate action than simply a fear of future problems. ...but whichever, the point is.... === These are newly recognized "tangible benefits," right? So can I point out that as a "new tangible benefit," this is a "new commodity" with value, which may therefore help improve our economic outlook. Is this a logical consideration? ~

Yes, I was just suggesting a "possibility" for the OP's question. I didn't do the research supporting the OP. === But I did mention a book in my first reply: Larding the Lean Earth, by Steven Stoll http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0809064316 http://www.kirkusrev...the-lean-earth/ "An engaging examination of the early proponents of restorative husbandry--their origins, motivations, and how their ideas played out--from Yale historian Stoll." The "proponents of restorative husbandry," or conservatives, are contrasted with the "progressives" who wanted to "advance" into new lands and discover new resources. I'm not talking about the origin of those words, but just how they were used at that time. I did misuse the word "derive" in that reply, so thanks for catching that. ~ p.s. Seen any Perseids tonight?

What do you mean "by chance?" Who says humans got here by chance? Wait! What? Ummmmm, well all of that was interesting. So what are these "facts about our existence" to which you refer? === Have you ever heard of this guy? === BTW, theories don't have to be "right;" they just need to be consistent and work, or to be explanatory and predictive. IMHO, Reality is more complex than any scientific theory or creationist ideology can convey, so probably neither should be confused with reality. ~

Whoops, sorry about that. I should have said "undergone more evolutionary pressures" or "evolved more," ...instead of "more evolved." I wasn't trying to use the word "evolved" to mean "better," but rather to mean simply "change over time." Whether it is judged as good or bad, "evolved" just means changed or adapted; and the mammals you mentioned with convoluted brains have been adapting a lot during the past few million years, whereas the smooth-brained ones haven't been.... === I'll try to read the other two long paragraphs later, but this was an important clarification.... ~ p.s. plus I don't think "wild" horses or wolves would differ much (in brains convolutions) from their domesticated counterparts; they were "adapting" a lot, even before domestication, compared with the lemurs, monkeys, and other smooth-brained mammals that you mentioned. It'd be interesting to compare dogs and wolves though; and see if dogs had more convolutions, even if their brains might be smaller or less fit than wolves by other measures.

So mammals that have evolved more-- adaptation to domestication and changes in habitat --over the past ten thousand to several million years have very convoluted brains... ...and mammals that haven't changed much for many more millions of years have smoother brains. That's very interesting... and suggestive of a convergent influence, perhaps? ~

Yes, in biology there is Growth & Development. We've grown enough and reached adolescence, so now it is time to start developing or maturing-- reorganizing, oriented toward new priorities. ...as a rough analogy. ~ p.s. ...but I suppose the term "growth spiral" is worrying. We need that capacity, but it also needs to be managed so that it is sustainable ("sustain a growth spiral"); as in... achieving enough power reach escape velocity and leave orbit, but managing it well enough to sustain a stable orbit... if that is what you mean by "steady state." To me "steady state" would describe the current cycling between boom and bust, but that's just one connotation.

Seriously? One of the reasons why (as a BSc in chem/biochem) I feel economics is not too difficult to fathom, is that my understanding of ecology seems to apply to economics. Energy flow, exchange across trophic levels, and resource utilization and allocation seem to cover the basic parameters of any complex system. Supply and demand equilibria, and adjustments to concentrations of reactants, such as QE1 and QE2, are useful analogies between chemistry and economics. The problems describing economic theory come from a lack of understanding about the parameters of the economic system, and of the limits and scales involved with those parameters... imho. Ecology provides a good guide for evaluating an accounting of parameters, and for estimating the limits and scales needed for judging potential. ...or words to that effect. === So... Really!? You don't think the study of a subject (ecology) is relevant to devising a system for management of that very subject (economy)? {...the study vs. the management of... oikos = eco} It seems intuitively obvious that the study of something would lead to a better understanding of the management of that thing, but I suppose it is more complicated than that. === BUT!! Y'know, now that I re-read that quoted comment, I think you are right; our present economy is not linked to resources or people. Hmmmmmmm! Yep, that insight may help explain many of the difficulties we encounter in trying to fix our present economic problems. That would suggest tweaking the parameters of "our present" economy will not have much effect on our resources or people, eh? ~

We need to find a new commodity; something that has a recognizable value, and that has enough volume to sustain a growth spiral. ...and this should be a tangible commodity, not more loans or derivatives.... imho (and based upon analogies to chemical, biological, and physical systems). ~

In general that describes things; but for that point in history specifically, land exhaustion was a big factor for several reasons. We still had a fairly young "market" economy back then, where most farming was for subsistence. Growing a bit extra to sell at market, or raising some extra livestock to sell, was a hard job and often did not bring in enough money to be worthwhile. And as the generations multiplied, land was divided so that growing extra for market became more problematic. And the land tended to yield less with each successive year. These pressures led to the development of techniques to fertilize the land and use mechanical advantages over more land; respectively to intensify the yield or profit margin, and to extend the yield or profit margin over a larger area. It wasn't until later, after mid-century when the whaling ships needed a new product to transport, that guano became the big advantage allowing the system to avoid crashing. Well, guano AND lots of new land out west. But without guano, and with new land available a few miles to the west, old exhausted land lost its value... UNLESS a new commodity could be generated from the land. The 1828 Gold Rush in Georgia spurred a lot of land speculation throughout the 1830, because suddenly lots of old exhausted land potentially had new value. It was land speculation that led President Jackson to issue the Specie Circular (requiring land be purchased with Gold/Silver, instead of bank notes), IN 1836! This is very oversimplified, and I don't know about the specifics of how that affected Maryland, but I bet there is a good story there somewhere! I agree that it is the whole history-- of an accumulation of drunken lurchings from one ecologic/economic bubble to the next --that pushes an empire or nearly bankrupts a state; but whatever drives the history behind the sources of mineral or mechanical or military wealth, it ultimately comes from and depends upon the richness of the land. The fate of one's homeland depends upon the fate of the lands. For our global homeland, we've lost about half of it to erosion so far... and I'm guessing that had already happened in Maryland by the early 1800's. ~

One possibility, which was common up and down the East coast, is land exhaustion. Land exhaustion (slash-n-burn, & farm for a few years until yields decrease) and the subsequent land erosion was a big drive pushing the settlement westward. Georgia (and Virginia also) wasn't "the land of red clay," until after the farmers moved through. Combined with "land speculation" and the opening of new territories around that time, it shouldn't be hard to construct a reasonable narrative supporting the ...question. What was the question again? The book "Larding the Lean Earth" describes this general scenario, with examples from South Carolina and New England. Interestingly, the term "progressives" derives from those folks who wanted to abandon the land, and progress westward to take new land (hey, it was free! ...and unoccupied). The "conservatives" wanted to stay in place and work to restore the land. Hmmmmm! ~

But limiting costs based on "expectations" is problematic. To more fully enjoy the benefits of civilization, we agree to take on fixed costs; so forcing limits from year to year reduces the certainty with which we can undertake beneficial obligations. But I see your point about all the ways to get around those limits. I guess a BBA would be about as useful as a "debt ceiling," eh?

Right! For the basic reason that a BBA removes the ability of the government to buffer against either man-made or natural disasters, it doesn't make sense. And as INow mentioned, because of the ability to invest, or undertake projects on a grand scale, or even just save for a future unforeseen problem, it makes sense to be able to buffer the fiscal management of our nation. I'm curious to know what mindset assumes that changing one fundamental parameter of the system will magically solve all of our problems. I suppose that after finding no success in tweaking the secondary parameters, that must seem to be an option worth trying. Why does this BBA "solution" come up, every decade or so, as the solution to whatever fiscal problem has arisen? === An economy based on sustainable production should be developed to replace our unsustainable consumption-based economy, before changing the fundamentals of the system in such a restrictive manner with a constitutional amendment. ~imho

This is just guess, but it may not be the temperature of 37C specifically that the "warning" refers to as problematic, but rather the likelyhood of biological contamination, and subsequent growth --and consumption or biodegradation of the protein-- that the product warning is designed to prevent. You seem to have kept your samples uncontaminated. You could test and see if the activity decreased for various contaminated samples? ~Good Luck

Eco- comes from the Greek Oikos, meaning house or (environment) the place where we live. ...and nemein means "management" so... So ecology is the study of our environment, and... economy is the management of our environment. === Learning more from ecology might help us fix our economy, yes?

I don't think it was just the little people clamoring for loans that fueled the bubble: I wrote this last night, but was only repeating other posts by the time.... But now it seems relevant again (though it should have been rewritten, edited, etc.). Demand (except for essentials) is mostly generated through public perception, or what people value. The demand for beaver hats, and the transition to silk hats, is a good example of supply, demand, and a NEW commodity. The housing bubble doesn't just relate to [employment levels in] construction though, since the purchase of new houses also drove [employment levels in] the production and consumption market of furnishings, appliances, utensils, decorations, various electronics, landscaping, schools, shops, markets, and entertainment, and so on. So it isn't surprising that employment is down across-the-board following the reversal in housing growth. The point about a NEW commodity, with enough volume to drive growth.... Passé commodities sustain growth, but only NEW commodities can drive new growth, and feed a growth spiral. === And I think we need to realize that only real commodities create real value in the long run. Loans shouldn't be used as a commodity, even though it is hard to find any new commodity with the almost limitless volume of loans (and their derivatives). edit: this is the "housing bubble part" But having done so, now almost 30% of our GDP is based on the paper structure that defines the financial, banking, and real estate sectors. 30%! I guess that is what "too big to fail" refers to, eh? Even 15-20%, from the heathcare sector of GDP, is probably too big to fiddle much with.... But I can see why we need to gradually and carefully untangle that sliced-n-diced house of cards, and why we can't easily switch our HC system overnight. 3% ...Just three percent of GDP... is covered by the tangible contributions from our agriculture, mining and drilling sectors. ~[iirc] === Does this seem problematic; having such a skewed ratio of tangible to virtual commodities supporting the GDP? And consider the relative employment associated with those sectors: That is lots of cash for a group of paper-pushering cardsharks, and very little for the fieldhands and miners. It would be nice to have a NEW tangible commodity that was valued enough to maintain a demand-driven growth spiral, which would help shift that ratio of tangible to virtual GDP toward a more healthy balance. === disclaimer: I value biodiversity, and I understand the importance of paper-pushing cardsharks to proper ecosystem functioning; but their population has become dangerously unbalanced... with too many predators and not enough prey at the base of the food chain. So it would follow that we need more tangible commodities that can support and enlarge the base of the [economic] food chain. imho... thinking of this from a biochemist's perspective. === edit: It was loans (mostly housing related) that were being pushed as the hot new commodity, that caused the bubble and the attending house of cards; not the consumers only trying to keep their heads above water by "buying a house" since their incomes weren't increasing by any positive amounts. imho.... ~

Right! ...and cutting taxes on the rich doesn't seem to relate to the "demand" of which you speak. Without a new commodity with which to buy sell and trade, it's hard to keep an economy growing. The hula hoop was a good example about 50 years ago, for one year. Televisions and cars, color TV's and hotter cars, and housing and better housing kept things going through the 60's and 70's until cheap energy made consumerism a slightly less than sustainable commodity on which to base the economy. At that point, loans became a commodity which allowed the US economy to expand an order of magnitude, especially when the banks took over for the S&L's as globalization proceeded. After the second loan bubble deflated, computers and the dotCom revolution filled the need for a commodity during the 90's. After that, only loans could generate enough volume to sustain the bubble of the 2000's--and home loans became the basis for a much larger volume of derived "loans" [the only new commodity] as we have now learned. But it is the volume of the commodity (which for whatever-- crazy or not-- reason is in demand) that determines the growth rate of the economy, isn't it? I know about the supply and demand perspective on limited commodities, but it is NEW commodities which allow for growth... over the level of subsistence, imho... with NEW equating to a large potential for growth, if not for other reasons too. We've got cars and tv's and electronics and food coming out of our ears, so to speak. About the only new commodity that we need is exercise.... Anyway, it is from that perspective that I suggest our problem is lack of a new commodity. The right commodity (assuming large, ongoing demand) would generate jobs and industries to collect, process, and refine the commodity, designing it for specific purposes... ...theoretically, right? For instance, a new gold rush in some region of the US, or a new source of energy that was non-polluting, and still safe and convenient, would jumpstart a growth spiral; and it would attract much of the several trillion dollars that business and banks (each) are sitting upon. === Do you agree that we need a new commodity, or do you think we can just keep tweaking the parameters on our house of cards that is too big to fail? Anyone? === ~ sorry to jump in... and I do realize "it's more complicated than" ...my little rant might suggest, but overall... wouldn't a good solid, sustainable NEW commodity go a long way toward solving the basic problems?

I won't go into the free samples of very expensive scientific books I have on kindle, but as for real books: 1. Bacterial growth and form Author: Koch, Arthur L. 1925- Published: 2001 Call Number: QR84.5 .K63 2001 pp.470 Status: Checked Out & 2. Mitigating climate change through food and land use Author: Scherr, Sara J. Published: 2009 Call Number: S589.7 .S337 2009 pp.48 Status: Checked Out This second one is very concise and comprehensive. Thank God somebody finally gets this big picture about how basic economics depends on ecology. === The first book also talks about the origins of life, from the "first cell" to the "last universal ancestor." hint: google the phrase, with quote marks, "Gradually the global biomass would have increased" ~ enjoy

Even with unflagellated cells, chemiosmosis, or any differential in a chemical (nutrient or nutrient-associated) gradient [humus], can redirect or reorient a cell. Signal reception is often associated with mechanical or structural changes that then cause directed movement.... ...if I understand the book I've been browsing this summer: 1. Bacterial growth and form Author: Koch, Arthur L. Published: 2001 Call Number: QR84.5 .K63 2001 Status: Checked Out ~

I feel the same way; but if I want to understand and be understood, I will try to use the IUPAC conventions: http://www.nzqa.govt...ry-specs-11.pdf For instance, this would be hard to understand if fused meant solidified, since they are studying flow. http://www.iupac.org...f/5302x0509.pdf Or just google fusion definition: So I'd say it is more like... "fusion" is the flow; solidification or crystalization stops the flow. ~

I used to also think exactly the same thing, but then I looked the word "fusion" up in the dictionary (even a non-scientific dictionary) to discover that I was wrong. === As contrasted with fission (which is how I first learned about "fusion"), fusion (as parts "freezing" together) seemed like the opposite of fission ("melting" into parts). In other words fission and fusion seemed like two side of the same phase change (so as you mentioned, one would need to "be careful with the signs"), but that was wrong. A better analogy probably would be to contrast fusion (as parts melting together) with fission (as "evaporation" into parts); thus comparing fusion and fission with two different phase changes, respectively. But as an analogy it is still not very comparable, and the dictionary is an easier way to discern meaning. === So in this case you are definitely wrong. Fusion means melting, not freeezing. Interestingly, since you mentioned "crystalization" specifically... fusion refers to the loss of order in a crystal (melting) but not the establishment of crystalline order being "frozen" into place, as you seem to have visualized. ~