<D'hondt> I was aware of Edward O. Wilson's theory and it will never stop to amaze me
<D'hondt> that the most assinine claims often make the most succesfull memes in the
<D'hondt> face of plentifull good scientific evidense to the contrary. ( another one
<Lion Replies> -----------------------------------------------
You do not provide one or "plentiful" contrasting theory. You besmirch Edward O.
Wilson, but do not point out error in his methodology or data, do not dispute his
sources, nor point out their faults in theory, methodology, or data. You have tossed
30 years's of a man's hard work in the trash, raising yourself up as "god" whose word
is to be believed absolutely just because you say so. I do not consider you, or
Wilson's critics, to be in the same league as him, and I give your opinion's their
proper and negligible weight. Come back if you have people who have done the
experiments which falsify the experiments (and data obtained, and conclusions
drawn from the data). As far as "meme"s go, Richard Dawkins who coined the word
in his book "The Selfish Gene" is infected with toxic thoughtforms, including the
idea that "ideas" could be analogized to viral pathology. You too are infested
with "toxic" thoughtforms, as examination of your words gradually reveals.
<D'hondt> is that of the naked dinosaurs. Some of them at least could not have stayed
<D'hondt> alive without being warm blooded and without sporting a covering of fur or
<D'hondt> feathers or something such )
<Lion Replies> -----------------------------------------------
SCIENCE is based on that which can be perceived by our natural senses,
aided with prosthetic senses (instruments and machines). That which
is outside of the reach of our senses and prosthetic senses is not
within the domain of science. One may amuse themselves with
fantasy or speculation about times or places too remote to be sensed
by us in any direct manner, but these pass-times are in the catagory
of entertainment, and are not within the domain of SCIENCE.
You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between
direct field studies and experiments of Wilson or Erwin, and the
much more speculative conclusions of paleobiologists based on
much more flimsy insubstancial evidence offered to our senses and
instruments. This failure to discriminate in degrees of trustworthyness
is a clue to toxic thoughtform infestation. The fact that you cannot
hold to the subject you are addressing for two successive sentences
is certainly another clue.
<D'hondt> Biodiversity depends on the total amount of sunlight reaching earth's
<D'hondt> surface and the lenght of time available without major stress factors or
<D'hondt> disturbances and the number of separate teritories available.
<Lion Replies> -----------------------------------------------
These are some of the absolutely essential ingredients, among others
you have not mentioned. The present date is most removed from the
evidentiary date of origin, SO THERE HAS BEEN MORE TIME. With
time there has been adapation to more niches previously without
occupants in the variety present today. Flowering plants and birds
did not make their appearance until the dinosaurs were about gone.
All of the symbionts, parasites (and parasites on the parasites) and
primary consumers of the flowering plants and birds emerged after
that fact.
It is BASICALLY IRRELEVENT! Whatever biodiversity we have is the
bio-wealth we have, not some (speculative) bonanza of any prior
age. Again, being unable to discriminate that there is a difference
between biodiversiy of the past which has already gone extinct
(and there is nothing can be done to change that fact), and knowing
that the biodiversity of today needs LIFE SAVIORS is another clue
to toxic thoughtforms at work.
<D'hondt> When you look at these three factors it must be clear that this can not be
<D'hondt> the most biodiverse period ever.
<Lion Replies> -----------------------------------------------
The argument is tedious. A big fat "SO WHAT?"
Had you read "Biodiversity II" edited by E.O. Wilson, which published about
35 scientific papers by an array of people I consider more informed than you,
you would know that neither the biodiversity of today, nor any other era has
ever been inventoried, and the resources have never been deployed to do so.
It is an argument which cannot ever be "won" no matter how much valuable
time is diverted from the "non-toxic" thoughtform of using whatever minutes,
day, or years left in our lifespan to saving what we have not even fully inventoried.
The lack of prioritizing your allocation of time is another clue to toxic thoughtform
infestation.
<D'hondt> Apart from this we should not forget that humans have been at it for some
<D'hondt> considerable time. At least then thousand years. Humans caused the ecosystem
<D'hondt> collapse at the end of the pleistocene that caused mass extinctions on the N
<D'hondt> American continent.
<Lion Replies> -----------------------------------------------
Another big fat "SO WHAT?" What about it? Are you going to announce that you
have a time machine so we can go back and change the past? If the data point is
fixed, immutable, than let us move on to subjects within the power of mortals where
something can be done about the data coming in.
<D'hondt> The Sahara desert was rain forest and savanne until at least six thousand
<D'hondt> years ago.
<Lion Replies> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have made no special study of the paleographic records from the Sahara,
but I have come across such speculations. I take them as requiring a drastic
revision of the plasticity of life, where finely adapted desert lifeforms can
emerge with exquisite rapidity to environmental bioregional changes of this
scale. Certainly a much more mature "theory of evolution" will be the result
of substantiating evidences that human beings are the prime desertifiers of
the globe. I support more research to obtain better evidence of the ages of
deserts and their ecologies.
The "toxic thoughtform" would manifest as a panic reaction, inability to
learn from the evidence that sincere investigation will lead to better levels
of planning and decision making. "Impotent outrage" is the leakage of
human energy which could otherwise be focused and used cybernetically
to incorporate the data (after trustworthyness is established by verification
techniques) into wiser future actions.
<D'hondt> In Western Europe we have already lost 70% of the bumble bees and butterflies to name
<D'hondt> but a few. About 75 % of our native plants are already
<D'hondt> near extinction. Bird populations of a very great many species have
<D'hondt> already dropped by 80 % or more.
<D'hondt> We will not have to wait a hundred years before loosing half of all
<D'hondt> species alive today.
<Lion Replies> -----------------------------------------------
The RED BOOK of rare, threatened, and endangered species does not
agree with your statements. But who are THEY to dispute your omnipotence?
And what is your proposal? Should we engage in "impotent outrage" and
squander away what little individual energy we have, and waste our time
in arguments of insubstantial phantoms of conjecture about nothing of any
real importance?
You have given a public demonstration of "impotent outrage" and the
negative value of being the proud possessor of toxic thoughtforms. For
providing that service I thank you, and the onlookers thank you. As they
say in the N.American television commercials for seat-belt usage:
"you can learn a lot from a dummy".
STOP WASTING MY TIME. Do you have solutions, or are you the
problem I have devoted my life to solving? The problem is going to get
solved! I put on my website the steps to solving this problem: how to
save the world while living a good life. I could use some help.
Here is the crux of the problem: Humans have been acting as an
exterminator species, taking everything and spoiling what they
don't use directly. They have been leaving nothing for nature.
On my website I have provided links to the SIXTH EXTINCTION
websites so people can inform hemselves, and I have provided
an Integrated Biological Systems agricultural method which can
be deployed around most parts of the world.
Since I began a series of essays on "micro-farming", which
got picked up and fowarded to a United Nations IBS science
conference (thank you, Jacky Foo) I have been flooded by
responses from people who have similar ideas or projects. I am
making a new website to promote any and all IBS micro-farms
and exchange of microfarming information.
So what have you done with your life?
<D'hondt> 20 years ago I could catch enough fish with a hand line from the shore
<D'hondt> in an hours time to feed a family for a week. Today you can go out with a
<D'hondt> boat and hoal in nets all day long and come home with empty hands.
<Lion Replies> -----------------------------------------------
So, build a pond, stock it with fish, keep your mitts off
of the strained and depleted natural fisheries, and quit
your whinning. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for
dinner; teach a man aquaculture and you can feed the
town".
Take some time off, and root out those toxic thoughtforms.
They manifested in another commentary you wrote about
regenerating rainforests through mineral cycles carried by
rainfall. You certainly have not given that very much deep
thought! I think you might have gotten the wrong address:
please send your responses to INSANET-MG. They enjoy
theories about fertilized rain falling on the rainforest, but not
falling on the clear-cut slash and burn farms within it.
Your paradigms are too small. Seriously, get them upgraded!
Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
LionKuntz@email.com, LionKuntz@aol.com, LionKuntz@yahoo.com
http://homepages.msn.com/VolunteerSt/lifesaviors/microfarm5.txt
^ paradigm upgrades done while you wait ^
http://homepages.msn.com/VolunteerSt/lifesaviors/synergy1.html
http://homepages.msn.com/VolunteerSt/lifesaviors/index.html
http://homepages.msn.com/VolunteerSt/lifesaviors/links.html
http://homepages.msn.com/VolunteerSt/lifesaviors/666extin.txt
===============================
Old messages text follows from here down
===============================
Subject: Re: Re: Fw:higher nutrient levels in organic food
From: "John D'hondt" <dhondt@eircom.net> Add to Address Book
Date: April 16, 2000 8:09:49 PM EDT
To: sanet <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu> Add to Address Book
To: Lion Kuntz <lionkuntz@email.com> Add to Address Book
CC:
----- Original Message -----
From: Lion Kuntz <lionkuntz@email.com>
To: John D'hondt <dhondt@eircom.net>; sanet <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:40 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Fw:higher nutrient levels in organic food
> ------Original Message------
> From: "John D'hondt" <dhondt@eircom.net>
> To: Lion Kuntz <lionkuntz@email.com>, sanet <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
> 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 our
> global ecosystem is collapsing right now.
> Here am I getting somewhat depressed about the sorry state of our good space
> ship Earth. And you living on the same planet seem to think that things have
> never been better. Unless I am missing something fundamental you are one
> lucky guy.
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lion Kuntz <lionkuntz@email.com>
> To: wytze <geno@zap.a2000.nl>; John D'hondt <dhondt@eircom.net>
> Cc: sanet <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
> 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 micro-farming
> > paradigm works. It looks
> > like a "miracle" or a "mystery", but it is verifiable by our senses and by
> > 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.
John
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
American continent.
The Sahara desert was rain forest and savanne until at least six thousand
years ago.
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 dropped by 80 % or more.
We will not have to wait a hundred years before loosing half of all
species alive today.
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.
> http://homepages.msn.com/VolunteerSt/lifesaviors/index.html
>
> 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
equines.
>
> 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
food-chain webs.
>
> Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:10 EDT