Yeah, yeah, I’ve watched it a couple times already. - agree it’s a fascinating introduction.
Point remains the “foreign” biome are pretty much restricted to specific locations.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:765, topic:7916”]
Yeah, yeah, I’ve watched it a couple times already. - agree it’s a fascinating introduction.
Point remains the “foreign” biome are pretty much restricted to specific locations.
Yes, but all over and throughout the body. Each species having very specific functions and intra-species language.
How many species of bacteria live in the human body?
Where doctors had previously isolated only a few hundred bacterial species from the body, HMP researchers now calculate that more than 10,000 microbial species occupy the human ecosystem. Moreover, researchers calculate that they have identified between 81 and 99 percent of all microorganismal genera in healthy adults.Jun 13, 2012
National Institutes of Health (NIH) – 31 Aug 15
Genome sequencing creates first reference data for microbes living with healthy adults.
As of 2014, it was reported in popular media and in the scientific literature that there are about 10 times as many microbial cells in the human body as there are human cells; this figure was based on estimates that the human microbiome includes around 100 trillion bacterial cells and that an adult human typically has around 10 trillion human cells.[8]
In 2014, the American Academy of Microbiology published a FAQ that emphasized that the number of microbial cells and the number of human cells are both estimates, and noted that recent research had arrived at a new estimate of the number of human cells – approximately 37.2 trillion, meaning that the ratio of microbial-to-human cells, if the original estimate of 100 trillion bacterial cells is correct, is closer to 3:1.[8][9] In 2016, another group published a new estimate of the ratio being roughly 1:1 (1.3:1, with “an uncertainty of 25% and a variation of 53% over the population of standard 70-kg [150 lb] males”).[10][3]
A more recent estimate is a ratio of 1.3:1 bacterial cells for every human cell, whereas the number of phages and viruses outnumber bacterial cells by at least a order of magnitude more.
The number of bacterial genes (assuming 1000 bacterial species in the gut with 2000 genes per species) is estimated to be 2,000,000 genes, 100 times the number of approximately 20,000 human genes.[11]
Human microbiome - Wikipedia
Who’s you? And can you put numbers on ‘the reality unfolding within our biosphere and climate engine’?
Now you’re yanking my dong. Why not provide some serious specific question that can be answered?
But here’s a conversation starter:
As I’ve already authoritatively said, it ain’t gonna happen. I doubt we’ll even get to 10 bn and within 20 years it will decrease. For the then foreseeable future. For centuries.
Yep, know all that and more. You’re the one saying I don’t. Why?
You asked the question.
Then you might try working on clarity.
You might try the same and working on coherence. You imputed my ignoring AGW on no basis whatsoever. You ignored Sooty and Sweep.
Ecology without class struggle is just gardening
Chico Mendes was a Brazilian trade union leader and environmentalist. He fought to preserve the Amazon rain forest, and advocated for the human rights of Brazilian peasants and indigenous peoples. He was assassinated by a rancher on 22 December 1988.
2 Likes
So, how is Social Security working out for us? (Rhetorical question) It isn’t.
Any system that requires old people to be supported by younger people requires population growth. The more non-productive people there are the more productive people must contribute, either by greater numbers or a greater percentage of income. Without population growth there must be a decrease in lifestyle.
The only sustainable welfare system is where each person saves and invests for his/her own old age.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:774, topic:7916”]
Any system that requires old people to be supported by younger people requires population growth. The more non-productive people there are the more productive people must contribute, either by greater numbers or a greater percentage of income. Without population growth there must be a decrease in lifestyle.
That conclusion does not necessarily follow the facts. It is entirely possible to have a balanced stable population. Our need for constant population growth is our constant increase of luxury standards and excess consumption of resources.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:774, topic:7916”]
The only sustainable welfare system is where each person saves and invests for his/her own old age.
Yes and that was social security, before they robbed it to pay for wars. All working people contributed to the social security system and at one time the system had sufficient self-generating resources.
The fact is that all the cash was taken and replaced with IOUs, which of course are worthless. Al Gore explained this in detail and invented the term social security “lockbox”, untouchable except for social security purposes.
Social Security: Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences
Administration and those close to the program did not expect the Social Security number to be our universal identifier.
According to the Social Security Administration, “the Social Security number was created in 1936 for the sole purpose of tracking the earnings histories of U.S. workers, for use in determining Social Security benefit entitlement and computing benefit levels.”
https://www.ourpursuit.com/social-security-good-intentions-unintended-consequences/?
The main problem is that every time there was a surplus revenue such as under Bill Clinton, the surplus was used to give tax breaks that disproportionally benefitted the very rich, instead of paying off the national debt and using the interest saving to strengthen the social security system.
The main problem is not the Capitalist system, it is unrestricted predatory Capitalism that over time has proven over time kill all competition and creating an unsustainable economic imbalance.
If a system becomes predatory one side loses and goes extinct, whereas in a symbiotic system all participants benefits and are able to maintain a stable survival system.
Humans are just a greedy lot.
Well said.
That’s about all I have to say about that.
Both go together and cannot be separated from each other.
No they don’t . In Nature when a species reaches the limits of sustainable growth it produces a lower birthrate, due to its limited adaptability. It is part of the “natural selection” process. This is how 96% of all species are now extinct.
Humans, due to our ability to alter our environment is able to switch resources in a
relatively short period of time and there by is able to continue growth at cost of all other species that are now going extinct at an ever increasing rate.
WELCOME TO THE ANTHROPOCENE
Human beings have existed for just 200,000 years, yet our impact on the planet is so great that scientists around the world are calling for our period in the Earth’s history to be named the ‘Anthropocene‘ – the age of humans. The changes we are now making have exacted a heavy toll on the natural world around us. It’s vital that people understand the impact we have. Help us spread the word.
“Looking across the world at the present time it is obvious to anybody at all who has even the slightest bit of biological knowledge that human numbers are already out of balance.”
Prof Aubrey Manning, zoologist
Two hundred years ago, there were less than a billion people on Earth. Today, there are 7.8bn and our population is still growing. According to the United Nations, unless we take action there is likely to be 30% more of us by 2050 and 11 billion people by 2100.
Every one of us places demands upon our planet—the very demands that have caused the changes that threaten us and the natural world we depend on.
This is an unsustainable trend and human population growth will come to an end by our own choice or by “natural selection”. Hence Dr. Bartlett’s observation that mankind is faced with the greatest existential dilemma.
Great movie. His theory is practiced today by pro sports. I don’t see the average man, or woman, being smart enough to let it work for him or her.
Yes, I saw the movie. Excellent!
The theory is called;
Nash solution
mathematics
…the Nash equilibrium or the Nash solution, when considering the possible actions of the other players. Despite its practical limitations, the Nash equilibrium was widely applied by business strategists.
Apart from gaming it is also a fundamental part of the business world and the stockmarket, which are financially strategic competitive endeavors.
But is only tangently related to the concept of “unrestricted capitalism” in nature and competitive quest for limited resources, where the predator takes all and the loser actually gets eaten, metaphorically or actually.
I was thinking of the pro sports draft as a good example. If you remember way back, the success of the NY Yankees just about killed pro baseall. The members of the leagues in all pro sports act smarter now. The league rules work for all the teams.
I would not characterize the predator-prey relationship as unrestricted capitalism. That relationship is self-correcting and tends toward a sustainable subsistence level over the long term. The predator makes a judgement call as to how much effort to put into obtaining prey thus restricting his activities.
Capitalism is the application of resources with the intent of obtaining a return greater than the original investment, in other words making a profit. Everyone who plants a seed in the ground in anticipation of getting back something more than another seed is practicing capitalism. True for any other activity with an anticipated return greater than the resources applied.
Society makes the rules that make social interactions (including capitalism) possible. We set business rules for individuals and corporations. We have a graduated tax schedule. We restrict monopoly but only when we recognize that a particular one is not in the best interest of society as a whole. Our concerns about big tech and big data will lead to restrictions.
Income and wealth disparity has been an issue since our hunter-gatherer days. People have an inate sense of “mine” and justify the individual’s desire to keep what he earns. Redistribution of resources, income and wealth don’t, and won’t, work well unless such activitities include at least some elements of a Nash solution.
I agree, but there are plenty of examples where the Nash Solution comes in too late to help the victim.
Invasive species are examples of conditions where the Nash Solution comes in too late and after the victim species have gone extinct,
This can be seen almost everywhere non-native species are imported and released in the wild.
INVASIVE SPECIES COME IN MANY SHAPES AND FORMS, AND ARE SILENTLY TAKING THE PLACE OF NATIVE SPECIES WE IDAHOANS DEPEND ON TO PERPETUATE OUR WAY OF LIFE.
Invasive species are non-native species that disrupt healthy ecosystem functions from the bottom up, causing a chain reaction which leaves nothing unaffected. Invasives such as zebra and quagga mussels, leafy spurge, Eurasian watermilfoil, yellow starthistle, bullfrogs, hydrilla, Asian carp, etc. prey upon, crowd out, displace, or otherwise harm native species. They alter ecosystem dynamics, transport pathogens, interfere with crop production, cause disease in animals and humans, and affect both aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
Unfortunately, as worldwide commerce and travel increase, so does the threat that unwanted species will arrive in our state and spread to areas where they are not now found. Idaho is not alone in facing these threats and there is growing national awareness of the need to prevent and control invasive species.
https://invasivespecies.idaho.gov/
Maybe when the land mass is all pushed up into one gigantic continent again (focus on “again”) they will all be naive again.
Yes , but it won’t. Fact is that so many species have adapted to local environments they are no longer able to thrive in different environments as found on earth.
An iceworm melts at above freezing temperatures, and tubeworm colonies grow where hot, mineral-laden water flows out of the seafloor in undersea hot springs.
Check out extremophiles.