"thunder" wrote in message
...


It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running.
In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone,
oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent
can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about
why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man
long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was
socrates not highly intelligent?

High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to
say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals
are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and
junkyards.

More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice.

del

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:18:35 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On 10 Aug 2005 08:56:15 -0700, wrote:

An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for both Doug and Chris Rader
- they've done some great work in the vein of the Cousteaus.

However, they seem to consistently ignore the historical data, which
goes back at least 300 hundred years, about "grend 'y gloryus pfysh"
often seen in cycles along the New England coast. Happens every time
the Gulf Stream moves inshore you see tropical fish - often in
abundance. In fact, when the Mystic Aquarium was first established,
one of these cycles occurred and their collection was increased two
fold just by collecting the fish off Fort Wetherwell in Rhode Island.

I remember in the mid-sixties, right before I graduated, doing a dive
off Halfway Rock (off Marblehead) and seeing angel fish, trigger fish
and other interesting species normally associated with the tropics.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a factor - I am saying that
there is historical data reaching back into an era where pollution
wasn't a factor that would seem to contradict some of the conclusions
of the article.

Later,

Tom

This is the fact that when you are heavily invested in hammers, you tend
to try to make everything out to be a nail. :-) It's human nature.

To deny that there are climate changes is foolish - of course there
are.

The question is why. Is it part of the natural weather cycle of the
atmosphere, is it caused by pollution, is it a combination of both -
what is going on.

It's not just a pat answer - it's a combination of factors and I'm not
convinced that we're just not in a natural cycle caused by sun spots
and the Earth's natural rhythms.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:00:07 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...


It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running.
In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone,
oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent
can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about
why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man
long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was
socrates not highly intelligent?

High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to
say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals
are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and
junkyards.

More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice.

Ellison did a great story about that, but I can't remember the name.

There has been a number of scifi themed stories along these lines in
fact - mining dumps and stuff - quite intriguing.

Personally, I think we need to find new frontiers to send all these
folks who want to impose their own brand of rule on others. Like
maybe Mars for starters. Let them pray to their spirit leader of
choice while they are terraforming the planet.

Hell, let's start Moon colony's - each bubble can be a different
faction and they can either win or die.

Make it tough for 'em. :)

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:00:07 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...


It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running.
In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone,
oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent
can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about why
intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man long
before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was
socrates not highly intelligent?

High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to
say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals
are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and
junkyards.

More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice.

del

One of man's special gifts is the ability to contemplate a future. Ignore
that gift at your will.

Del Cecchi wrote:
I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was
just mocking it.


With near total ignorance on both subjects. Way to go.

Since you align yourself with people who deny that there is sucha thing
as global warming, why mock the opposite possiblity?

Cleary, the Earth's climate can only do 1 of 3 possible actions: get
warmer (ruled out by your cronies), get cooler (ruled out by the
political affiliation of those who suggested it back in the 1960s) and
stay exactly the same temperature... is this what you believe?

If you admit that global warming is taking place, but insist that
mankind can't be the cause, then what is the cause? If you don't know,
why rule out man's activity? If you don't know, why mock a very real
possibility ?

Other than ignorance, I mean?

DSK

Del Cecchi wrote:
Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about
why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man
long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was
socrates not highly intelligent?

You totally missed the point.


More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice.


Translation: "I don't know what this guy was talking about and his
intelligent statements annoy me."

DSK