Climate change ???

[Strider]

Animals cannot evolve within a single generation!

[Giddy_up]

How does a fox whom has had his home destroyed by urbanisation figure out that garbage bins are a great source of food and subsequently teach the next generation. Adapt, survive, teach but don't set in concrete because it may not be there tomorrow. Currawongs on the OT are a classic example. Not only have they adapted, but as you change your process with your pack they become more innovative.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[photohiker]

I don't think that is adaption, it's opportunism.

Perhaps it might lead to adaption.

[Giddy_up]

It all starts right there tho


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Strider]

Teaching your offspring is not evolution. Evolution is a physiological process of adaptation, not a series of learnt behaviors.

[Strider]

I am intrigued whether you have a background in science Giddy Up, or philosophy?

[Giddy_up]

More the school of hard nock's.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Giddy_up]

Knocks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Son of a Beach]

Animals cannot evolve within a single generation!

Well, technically, according to evolutionary theory, they can. It's just a matter of which generation(s) it would occur in. It's all a matter of complete fluke whether not a particular genetic change occurs in the generation for which it would be advantageous and whether or not the change is sufficient to be advantageous. If you subscribe to the theory. (I don't subscribe to the theory, but don't have strong feelings on it either way.)

[Hallu]

There's a difference between a fox and coral... Foxes and wolves are one of the world most adaptable lifeforms, they've conquered the Arctic, deserts, mountains, plains etc... Coral will die if water temperature change by less than one degree... Are you gonna blame the coral for not being smart enough ? Plankton is affected too, and then all the food chain suffers.

[Strider]

Animals cannot evolve within a single generation!

Well, technically, according to evolutionary theory, they can. It's just a matter of which generation(s) it would occur in. It's all a matter of complete fluke whether not a particular genetic change occurs in the generation for which it would be advantageous and whether or not the change is sufficient to be advantageous. If you subscribe to the theory. (I don't subscribe to the theory, but don't have strong feelings on it either way.)

You have described a simple genetic mutation. Evolution refers to multiple successive changes over multiple generations. Sure, a mutation can kick things off in the right direction, but (you said it yourself) its just a fluke - suggesting its not a direct response to changing environmental pressures.

[Giddy_up]

Some parts of the ecosystem can and will evolve quicker than others. If change is quick then the species with the largest gene pool and the broadest geographical range will be better placed to survive. Coral may not have the capacity to replicate fast enough or in keeping with its environment, as such it may cease to exist. This might be bad but it may not as it may clear the way for something even more marvellous.
Inherited characteristics are your genotype such as brown hair, but also you have phenotype characteristics which are how your genotype interacts with your environment.
These phenotype characteristics might make you be able to withstand an extreme event. Some people go brown in the sun, your not born with a suntan but your genotype might allow you to be naturally selected if brown skin kept you alive.
Thus your phenotype helped in the natural selection process. Clear as mud!!!!!!!
It is widely believed that Dinosaurs disappeared because of temperature, this led to the rise of the mammals as their genotype allowed them to regulate body temp, but It only became evident when the phenotype interaction with their environment allowed them to survive cooler temps. Thus they were selected.
The fox who has a genotype for being less cautious may see its phenotype allow it to Intergrated better with is changed environment and sourcing food, another fox who posses a genotype for being very cautious may die in the same changed environment.

Whilst Darwinian theory is fun, the fact remains that there are two sides to the climate debate but only one gets promulgated. Climate has changed through millennia, this is now such an issue because our "lifestyle" is in jeopardy and more third world people strive to live like us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Hallu]

Clear the way for something more marvelous ? You really need to study more, and not just copy/paste some random stuff... Without coral, you instantly lose 25% of all marine species. They're the jungle of the sea. They provide shelter for a huge number of species, which in turn provide food for species higher up the food chain. Losing them would be a complete ecological disaster, which we could witness in our lifetime. The next stage of evolution showing a sort of replacement for coral, however, would be hundreds of years further away...

Evolution may sound nice and cool at a scientific level, but in reality it's just the harsh and brutal survival of the fittest, which if applied to the human society would amount to a nazi murderous regime, really... So when I hear speeches of "it doesn't matter if global climate change destroys so many species, evolution will eventually take over and new fabulous species will emerge", I'm quite pissed, because it's just a pathetic excuse to ignore the problems we cause.

[doogs]

It's always going to be difficult to gauge the true extend of humans on climate change as we are currently believed to be going through a period of natural global warming.The climate varies due to the orbit of the Earth around the sun, at different times of the year we are closer and at times further away. Also the Earths orbit of the sun isn't the same every year in fact there is a 41,000 cyclical pattern where we are in closer and more distant orbits examples of these fluctuations can be seen as the little ice age (about 1400-1800) and the pollen found in the Shetlands Islands from early civilisations suggests it was much warmer 4k-5k ago.
Animals have adapted to these recent changes, probably many have become extinct.In my opinion our endeavours as humans are accelerating the global warming and not giving the animals and plants time to evolve to the conditions.There is a good chance of losing many alpine plant species in the near future as they are currently adapted to the climate of our mountain tops eg. instead of Nothofagus in Tasmania we'd have No Fagus (did you see what I did there ).

[Giddy_up]

I certainly do not ignore climate change, I am hugely pro-active in all my businesses, they must use renewable and be sustainable at huge cost to me so I can pass them on to my children. Maybe I'm the one who should be pissed when the world thumbs its nose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[wayno]

yeah every bit helps. i never owned a car till i was 28, cycled as many places as i could, i looked around and realised hardly anyone else was interested in making that sort of sacrifice for the environment, nz drivers arent exactly bike friendly in their diving. so i thought to hell with it, i want to drive a car i'll drive one, i'm not going to save the planet being carless.... i did my bit... and few others wanted to do their bit....

[Hallu]

An easy bit is to stop eating so much beef and products that contain palm oil (all the cheap biscuits, chips and crackers, and nutella). We, NZ and Australia, are lucky to have so many sources of food, but we hardly use it... Kangaroo, emu, possum or wallaby meat should be a staple in our countries, whereas it is mostly beef we fancy, which production is essentially a methane production plant...

Another one is trickier : bio-fuels (such as the use of ethanol in petrol) do actually more harm than good to the environment, as they require huge crop fields to produce them. It has led to increased deforestation in the US and Brazil, who produce 85 % of the world's ethanol fuel.

[Earthling]

An easy bit is to stop eating so much beef and products that contain palm oil

Yes plenty of stats out there about the meat eating. Some say up to 35% global CO2 is from animal production.

[wayno]

been red meat free for over twenty years.... have some lentils, split peas, beans for protein....
the amount of energy it takes to produce beef you can fed far more people with protein and fat by growing plants to feed people.... less land needed for food production....

[Giddy_up]

Try chinas 2000+ coal fired power plants and the new one they build every week. Cows farting wont match that.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[wayno]

different story when there isnt enough land left to grow enough food to feed the planet.... farming animals is wasteful of land and energy

[Hallu]

Yeah but that doesn't mean we should stop eating meat. The key is to diversify our food. With all the feral animals in Australia, we should eat more goat, wild pig, camel and donkey. Those are delicacies in a lot of countries. The next step is insects. It needs to be presented to the Western public (quite a bit of Asian countries already eat them) as a good source of food, and good food altogether. I wouldn't mind eating fried crickets, stir fried larvae (apparently the ones from hornets taste like almonds), etc... Same thing with birds : Aussies only eat chicken, where are the pigeons, the partridges, pheasants, etc... ? A goose is so rare here it costs 100 $ at the QV market in Melbourne... The only domain where Aussie is "ok" compared to Europe or America is seafood. We have so much that our waters aren't as over-fished as the Atlantic. But fish farming should be stopped, it's very polluting. Again, the focus should be variety, if there aren't enough barramundis or shrimp, just eat something else instead of increasing the prices or starting to farm them.

Btw, with methane being a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, it is worse to have a cow farting all year, than driving your SUV 75 000 km a year... If you combine all the cattle stations in Australia, I'd estimate it's about as bad for the environment as having a second 5 million people city like Sydney in Australia. Do that in the US or Argentina, where they have smaller stations but a greater number of cattle, and it's even worse.

And regarding the coal power plants in China, well at least some of their electricity is nuclear. And their plan is to be more and more nuclear (which is actually a good thing, unless they botch up the security like they're usually prone to do...). Australia could have ditched their coal power plants a long time ago, they sell a huge amount of uranium to France, which in turn could have provided them the expertise and technology to build nuclear plants in Oz. Instead they still haven't given the ok to shut down the oldest and most polluting plant in Australia near Traralgon... Way to go Australia...

[Giddy_up]

The sad fact is we don't produce enough now.
Food reserves of the critical food stuffs, rice, corn, wheat, and skim milk powder have been hovering around 75 days for a few years. If there was a global disaster that was effective immediately we are out of food in 3 months, thats all of us. Fresh supplies are gone in a matter of days. That's a grim outlook.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Nuts]

Actually, domestic animals are thought to contribute more than half the (human contribution of) greenhouse gasses.
Therein lies the political dilemma, here's the response when cows were asked for their opinion:

Screen Shot 2013-04-15 at 6.12.54 PM.png (205.9 KiB) Viewed 16507 times

[Clusterpod]

..

[Hallu]

A tax should be applied on animal farming, similar to the CO2 tax on cars. Problem is, beef is too cheap in Australia. If you compare to France, over there beef is about 20 to 35 € / kg depending on the cut, while in Australia it's 10 to 20 $ / kg. That's about the only food product that's less expensive here than in Europe (I dare you to find me another one). Start to heavily tax the beef, and then maybe people will start having a look at kangaroo, wallaby and emu meat, which are all delicious.

[Giddy_up]

Have a look at chinas meat consumption
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... =411&h=348
As chinas middle class grows that figure could well go off the chart.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Hallu]

We need the chart per capita Giddy_up. That makes it 52 kg/year/capita for China, and about 105 kg/year/capita for the US. Still a way to go... You also need to take into account the types of meat. Chinese eat a lot of pork and chicken, while Americans are more about beef. Americans are something like 40 % beef, 40 % chicken, 20 % pork. China is like 70% pork, 20% chicken, 10% beef. And if you look at this : http://www.themeatsite.com/articles/928 ... eat-sector , they don't eat more beef in the last years, they just eat more pork and chicken. They're not starting to eat Western food, they still eat Chinese recipes, it's just that many more people are now wealthy enough to afford more meat on their table. Regarding India, we're pretty much safe with their beliefs (at least for the Hindu part of the population).

[stepbystep]

....start having a look at kangaroo, wallaby and emu meat, which are all delicious.

Agreed, I eat wallaby(kangaroo on the mainland) regularly, however you can't farm them and gathering them is inefficient and borderline cruel(it literally involves dudes on the back of utes at night with guns). Emu's can be farmed but these are a wild bird that naturally roam over large areas not used to domestic farming methods. They are wild animals, not domesticated beasts that have evolved over thousands of years of domestic use. Ultimately we need to eat seasonally, locally, ethically and with far less meat in our diets.

I'm no saint but in my home we do our best, far better having one awesome pork chop/lamb cutlet/sirloin steak/wallaby burger fortnightly that costs a bomb than meat and 3 veg daily. Look at what's available and plan your meals, not the recipe and then seek the ingredients.

[Giddy_up]

Your right Hallu, but all that chicken and pork I assume are raised commercially and are fed grain. The whole system is catch 22. I just can't see how our current food production and harvesting from the sea can support the global demand for protein. What's more every time you move you make CO2 and at the moment the users of that protein are not covering the cost to solve the riddle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD