Al Agnew Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Population is a root cause, but it's not JUST population. Thanks to affluence and technology, each individual has a lot more capability to screw things up than they once did. I can go hire a guy with a bulldozer that can wipe out 40 acres of forest in a week if I was so inclined. I use up more resources and give off more pollution in where I live, how I drive, what I eat, etc. than a hundred people did ten thousand years ago. I'm feeling really pessimistic tonight...just got back from a meeting out here in Livingston MT about hydro-fracting...apparently fracking is going to be coming to Park County in the next few years, up in the Shields River valley, which empties into the Yellowstone just three miles downstream from our house.
flytyer57 Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Well JD, since you knew that, tell me how we fix it. Build a few more nuclear reactors on fault lines near major population centers and hope for some more earthquakes. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Tim Smith Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Duhh, that would be because of the increase in population for the most part. More people=less carrying capacity. JD is statistially correct here. The more people you find in an area, the lower the biodiversity, especially for large animals or rare animals. Al's comment about technology is also correct from a certain perspective. We have much more capacity now to do harm very quickly. However, we also have the capacity to learn and we have the capacity to find and implement technologies that are less harmful. If we can manage to tell ourselves the truth and make some simple accomodations rather than selling out our minds to the highest bidder we may have some reasons for hope.
drew03cmc Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 Build a few more nuclear reactors on fault lines near major population centers and hope for some more earthquakes. We could continue to build dams and ruin perfectly good natural streams as well, but I guess you are aware that nuclear plants are statistically safer than coal powered plants, hydroelectric dams and other forms of energy, right? If you knew that, you would also know that our country does not have a nuclear plant newer than the 70s, so anything built recently would have the appropriate safety measures in place to handle something of that nature. Hating nuclear power has been sensationalized recently due to the catastrophe in Japan, which, without the tsunami, the plant would still be operational. I guess that has been taken into account too, right? Now, what is the likelihood of a tsunami in Missouri? Andy
Al Agnew Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 Wow, this thread has really gone off on a tangent! Risk assessment. More people die, directly and indirectly, from using coal that have ever been killed because of nuke plants. But the deaths from air pollution from burning coal are hard to quantify and never get onto the risk assessment radar. On the other hand, when something bad happens at a nuke plant, it is obvious and it is scary, it has the potential of ruining large amounts of land for many years, and it has the potential of causing one to get horrible cancers years down the road. So although it happens so rarely that most people never worry about the local nuke plant, when it does happen it scares the bejesus out of everybody, while nobody is scared of the air pollution from burning coal, and only the miners are scared of accidents. What the Japanese found out is that you can never totally plan for the unforeseen, and because of that, nothing is perfectly safe.
Members OkobojiEagle Posted April 2, 2011 Members Posted April 2, 2011 Population is a root cause, but it's not JUST population. Population is THE root cause. It is posible to reverse the trend but it will take many generations and except for a very short duration in the 70's we aren't even talking about it! eo
jdmidwest Posted April 2, 2011 Author Posted April 2, 2011 Wow, this thread has really gone off on a tangent! It started out as a lighthearted thread anyway. Was anyone thinking we seriously have any wolves? "Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." — Hunter S. Thompson
drew03cmc Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 I would love this area to have wolves again! That would be great, along with the elk and cougars. Andy
Tim Smith Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 It started out as a lighthearted thread anyway. Was anyone thinking we seriously have any wolves? There are resident populations in Wisconsin and Minnesota and they've been popping into Illinois and Indiana for visits for years. You can bet they take little tours through Missouri too.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now