----- Original Message -----
From: Lion Kuntz <email@example.com>
To: John D'hondt <firstname.lastname@example.org>; sanet <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:40 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Fw:higher nutrient levels in organic food
> ------Original Message------
> From: "John D'hondt" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Lion Kuntz <email@example.com>, sanet <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: April 10, 2000 4:02:48 AM GMT
> Subject: Re: Fw:higher nutrient levels in organic food
> How exactly do you figure that out Lion. If you look at the fossil records
> of the Mesozoic era it just seems possible to imagine that life may have
> been a good bit more abundant then. But we are not talking about that.
> Are we not loosing the most abundant part of the global ecosystem at an
> increasingly fast rate at present.
> How many species become extinct every hour of the day? What percentage of
> the global biomass goes up in flames every year? To me that sounds as if
> global ecosystem is collapsing right now.
> Here am I getting somewhat depressed about the sorry state of our good
> ship Earth. And you living on the same planet seem to think that things
> never been better. Unless I am missing something fundamental you are one
> lucky guy.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lion Kuntz <email@example.com>
> To: wytze <firstname.lastname@example.org>; John D'hondt <email@example.com>
> Cc: sanet <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw:higher nutrient levels in organic food
> > Unless one has apprehended that life has been eating the planet for 3.7
> billion years, and is more
> > abundant now than ever, one cannot grasp how the sustainable
> paradigm works. It looks
> > like a "miracle" or a "mystery", but it is verifiable by our senses and
> our prothestics
> > (instruments). The real mystery, once one does see through to the
> essential fact, is why one didn't
> > get it sooner.
> > [... rest snipped, see archives for intact original..]
> Lion Relies...
> I am relying on Edward O. Wilson from two books, "The Diversity of Life"
and "Biodiversity II". It
> does appear that we are experiencing the peak of biodiversity at its'
all-time high, but we are
> presently extinguishing life at the rate of three species per hour. At
some point the losses will
> reduce the total to less than earlier moments. (At a later moment, one
hundred years from now, half
> of all species will be gone unless heroic eforts are made to change that
trend.) Also we seem to be
> experiencing the greatest amount of biomass at this moment. Some estimates
(Norman Myers) say that
> we are losing tropical forests at the rate of an acre per second.
I was aware of Edward o. Wilson's theory and it will never stop to amaze me
that the most assinine claims often make the most succesfull memes in the
face of plentifull good scientific evidense to the contrary. ( another one
is that of the naked dinosaurs. Some of them at least could not have stayed
alive without being warm blooded and without sporting a covering of fur or
feathers or something such )
Biodiversity depends on the total amount of sunlight reaching earth's
surface and the lenght of time available without major stress factors or
disturbances and the number of separate teritories available.
When you look at these three factors it must be clear that this can not be
the most biodiverse period ever.
Apart from this we should not forget that humans have been at it for some
considerable time. At least then thousand years. Humans caused the ecosystem
collapse at the end of the pleistocene that caused mass extinctions on the N
The Sahara desert was rain forest and savanne until at least six thousand
In Western Europe we have already lost 70% of the bumble bees and
butterflies to name but a few. About 75 % of our native plants are already
near extinction. Bird populations of a very great many species have already
by 80 % or more.
We will not have to wait a hundred years before loosing half of all species
20 years ago I could catch enough fish with a hand line from the shore in an
hours time to feed a family for a week. Today you can go out with a boat and
hoal in nets all day long and come home with empty hands.
> I take the threats seriously. Please visit "Life Saviors" homepage and
think of what kind of
> creative eforts you can take to make the bleak story better.
> You are strongly advised to buy and read the book "The Diversity of Life"
mentioned above to get a
> laymen's level explanation of the difficulties of exploring the
micro-world, where most species
> cannot be stained for viewing, nor cultured for study. Stephan Jay Gould
in his book "Full House" is
> the source for the data about maximum biomass. Gould is trying to prove
his atheistic thesis in this
> book concerning the randomness and purposelessness of existence. He does
however corral good data
> into one place about the microbial penetration into every crevice and
hiding place we probe. Take
> the data and the sources, and can the Gould proselytizing of his religious
beliefs. Data is where
> you find it, evidently sometimes even coming out the smelly end of
> But, let us suppose that life was more abundant during the Mesozoic era.
It does not change my point
> that life got to be that abundant by developing enzymes and digestive
acids to mine nutrients from
> the dead planet. Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (can't recall book title)
points out that enzyme
> catalysts can accelorate chemical reactions up to 40,000 times the rate
they would occur by
> inorganic natural processes. Life has the technology, evidently by
evidence of our senses and
> instruments, to pull insoluble nutrients out into circulation for hoarding
and recycling by the
> biota mass. Vermicompost has been measured to have higher levels of
essential fertility factors than
> the inorganic soil that the worms were given to work on. The exact
processes are not yet identified,
> but no "alchemy" is required to postulate that microbes using biotech
mined miniscule traces and
> bio-concentrated them into macro quantities placed into circulation in the
> Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
> FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
> To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:09 EDT