Suffering...should we be thinking about the bacteria???

[Dadnatron]

As I was perusing literature on effects of cattle saliva on plant growth... (it helps pretty dramatically BTW)... I ran across this article. I thought that perhaps a big kumbaya session was in order and perhaps we could start here. While I won't expect you to read it all... here are a few of the notable 'quotes' from the article.

Essays on Reducing Suffering by Brian Tomasik

- Most insects that are born die before reaching maturity, often in painful ways. From the perspective of reducing insect suffering, it seems good, ceteris paribus, to reduce insect populations. Cattle grazing is one way in which humans affect the world's insect populations on a massive scale.

- However, one might apportion a large amount of ethical importance to the collection of all bacteria and other unicellular organisms that a pasture supports. If one cares about the suffering of bacteria, one should probably also care about the suffering of individual cells within larger animals (including insects and cattle).


How Cattle Grazing Affects Pasture Productivity | Essays on Reducing Suffering

 

[DieselBound]

When the article starts out with "overgrazing" it can only then present (mostly) issues with overgrazing, which is NOT the practice of all cattlemen. I've followed grass-fed rancher folks for some time and have seen a clear win. Perhaps no greater, starker picture is that presented by Allan Savory in his work in Africa:

Reversing Desertification with Livestock - Our World

The cumulative suffering of insects is less in a desertified land, because there's going to be a LOT less insects.

 

[Dadnatron]

But if your cows eat the vegetation which would have ultimately been 'eaten' by indigenous bacteria... are you to blame for their suffering? Nothing sadder than skinny bacteria panhandling on the side of your corpuscles.

 

[DieselBound]

Yeah, the problem with lots of these kinds of "studies" is that they fail to consider what a "normal" population really is/means. EVERYTHING grows until it collapses. Based on this fact I'd have to say that the vegetation is, ultimately, the demise of the bacteria!

Humans are here and have to figure a way to try and work within a balance. Sadly, the notion of perpetual growth on a finite planet, which our human abstract of "economics" relies upon, isn't recognized as also being subject to the laws of nature. Savory and other grass-fed beef folks are closest to being on the path to something that's more akin to "sustainable."

Also in our soils are BAD bacteria. Eventually very little will make it out alive: though bacteria (some) will.

 

[Rustyiron]

I wonder how many of our tax dollars were spent on that drivel?

 

[4get gto]

First global warming now this. When it's going to end?

 

[DieselBound]

Climate change IS real: the ONLY question is that of how humans are affecting/can affect the interval of the glacial periods (we're in an inter-glacial period; the glacial period WILL come, no matter what we do- it's earth's way of re-tilling the soils; this is readily proven through core samples); to state that humans have no affect on the environment is pure ignorance/self-deception.

But for the "report," the problem is that it presents a false premise, one of it being of over-grazing or no-grazing. If one is allowed to have a bad premise blown by them then anything else following can be made to seem sensical. Trees that are pruned tend to produce more fruit. That would be like managed grazing. The alternatives as presented in the "report" is that of either letting the tree grow w/o any management (would it then be just art?) or we cut the tree down to the ground.

 

[plowhog]

I hope global warming is true because I am compassionate about others. Far too many homeless people have been lost from freezing to death in cold climates. Think of the lives saved if the global warming ... gambit ... is true.

For those concerned about deaths of millions of microbes, please write a letter to the leader of North Korea. His rumored atmospheric test of a nuke will blow off the charts many other concerns when it comes to death of microbes.

 

[DieselBound]

I hope global warming is true because I am compassionate about others. Far too many homeless people have been lost from freezing to death in cold climates. Think of the lives saved if the global warming ... gambit ... is true.

For those concerned about deaths of millions of microbes, please write a letter to the leader of North Korea. His rumored atmospheric test of a nuke will blow off the charts many other concerns when it comes to death of microbes.

It's Climate Change. It's a cycle. Warming happens prior to a very, VERY prolonged deep freeze. Might be too much for most people to understand.

As for NK, if you think they are a threat then you're really in the dark (and nicely programmed by the propagandists). Ah, but it's only humor, right!

 

[plowhog]

Those pushing the global warming agenda had to change to "climate change" when temps started to dip. "Climate change" is generic so one can argue for lots of new regulations based on any up or down change in temps. Twice as effective as just ... increasing temps.

For interesting reading, google "Mauder minimum" which occurred in the 1800's. Many scientists think we are entering another one-- which upsets the apple cart about .... global warming. Ooops I mean climate change. :laughing:

 

[TomSeller]

I wonder how many of our tax dollars were spent on that drivel?

You beat me to that comment. Probably some grad student on a federal Obama Grant. I can't believe this carp gets funded.

 

[TCJatko]

OK, that's it; I'm fed up with insect suffering. I'm starting a new organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects (PETI). Of course I'll need money, lots of it, and maybe a Gulfstream so I can spread "my message of hope to insects all over the world". Anybody know some good grant writers?

 

[4get gto]

OK, that's it; I'm fed up with insect suffering. I'm starting a new organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects (PETI). Of course I'll need money, lots of it, and maybe a Gulfstream so I can spread "my message of hope to insects all over the world". Anybody know some good grant writers?

I don't know but a Go Fund Me page might work.

 

[DieselBound]

Those pushing the global warming agenda had to change to "climate change" when temps started to dip. "Climate change" is generic so one can argue for lots of new regulations based on any up or down change in temps. Twice as effective as just ... increasing temps.

For interesting reading, google "Mauder minimum" which occurred in the 1800's. Many scientists think we are entering another one-- which upsets the apple cart about .... global warming. Ooops I mean climate change. :laughing:

You can worry about conspiracies (everyone is going to look to make a buck off anything- I have no horse in this "race," other than I prefer to go through life on the less-ignorant side), or you can understand facts. There are ZERO facts showing that the climate/earth is in stasis. Climate-change deniers have to hop all over the place to answer this one: "oh, it's always been that way" - well, yes, the climate is always changing, and REAL physical evidence shows that it also changes in abrupt and significant ways (which could be stated as being detrimental to humans).

Because something has not happened doesn't mean that it will not. Because one has not had cancer to-date does not mean one will not: I'm sure that even climate change deniers cannot refute this logic.

Look up Greenland Norse: all was fine until the climate changed on them (of course, their religious dogmas also doomed them, but that's a separate story [but also speaks to the ignorance that underpins most human hubris]. Or, you can actually look at ice core samples. Glacial activity is nature's way of re-tilling the soils: after long periods of weather cycles during inter-glacial periods the loss of top soil tips the scale.

Back on topic, bacteria is the reason we're alive. As a matter of fact, we harvest and hunt in order to feed bacteria (in our guts- who is in control?). And while still on topic, the "report" has value in its acknowledging the meaningfulness of bacteria and insects in nature's balancing work.

And for the climate change deniers, if you're reading this then that means that time has occurred. Time is proof that stasis does not exist, which follows that, the climate, and all, IS changing.

NOTE: those that base their arguments on how much humans are affecting the climate's changing I have no real beef with- the complexities of such analytics are almost certainly outside the ability of human thinking (there are extreme under-thinkers here as well as there are extreme over-thinkers; but, regardless, this still has little bearing on the fact that the earth WILL go through another glacial period, and then on to its next inter-glacial period; no clue as to what comes out That other side).

 

[mcfarmall]

I believe we humans give ourselves way too much credit on how much we can control what the planet does. If humans have so much influence on our planet then why hasn't Al Gore et al found a way to stop hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, floods and wildfires? Probably because the Koch brothers are the ones really controlling the earth!

 

[TCJatko]

You can worry about conspiracies (everyone is going to look to make a buck off anything- I have no horse in this "race," other than I prefer to go through life on the less-ignorant side), or you can understand facts. There are ZERO facts showing that the climate/earth is in stasis. Climate-change deniers have to hop all over the place to answer this one: "oh, it's always been that way" - well, yes, the climate is always changing, and REAL physical evidence shows that it also changes in abrupt and significant ways (which could be stated as being detrimental to humans).

Because something has not happened doesn't mean that it will not. Because one has not had cancer to-date does not mean one will not: I'm sure that even climate change deniers cannot refute this logic.

Look up Greenland Norse: all was fine until the climate changed on them (of course, their religious dogmas also doomed them, but that's a separate story [but also speaks to the ignorance that underpins most human hubris]. Or, you can actually look at ice core samples. Glacial activity is nature's way of re-tilling the soils: after long periods of weather cycles during inter-glacial periods the loss of top soil tips the scale.

Back on topic, bacteria is the reason we're alive. As a matter of fact, we harvest and hunt in order to feed bacteria (in our guts- who is in control?). And while still on topic, the "report" has value in its acknowledging the meaningfulness of bacteria and insects in nature's balancing work.

And for the climate change deniers, if you're reading this then that means that time has occurred. Time is proof that stasis does not exist, which follows that, the climate, and all, IS changing.

NOTE: those that base their arguments on how much humans are affecting the climate's changing I have no real beef with- the complexities of such analytics are almost certainly outside the ability of human thinking (there are extreme under-thinkers here as well as there are extreme over-thinkers; but, regardless, this still has little bearing on the fact that the earth WILL go through another glacial period, and then on to its next inter-glacial period; no clue as to what comes out That other side).

I don't think anyone denies that the climate is changing; the main beef is that the liberal "solution" is always more governmental control over every aspect of our lives. I'm fairly sure that the much-vaunted Paris Accords are based on the "fact" ( I parenthesize the word because the bulk of this climate change program seems based on hypotheticals) that if everything they proposed was implemented a virtually negligible change in climate would occur. There seems to be no consideration of cost vs. benefits, the costs appear to be substantial, and most of the costs are borne by the US and by extension US taxpayers. More government has proven to be a poor fix for anything.

 

[plowhog]

I believe the debate over climate change is polluted by those seeking to make a buck (Al Gore, etc.) and overzealous government bureaucrats itching to find new ways to pass regulations and tax things. Didn't Gore predict that the Arctic would be ice-free by now, with his show that brought him lots of $$$? If you watched that show, you saw a heavy reliance on innuendos with little science to back it up. Not very convincing. If he believed his own pitch I don't think he'd fly his jet all over the world promoting his ..... money making pitch.

The government folks are also easy to figure out. Serving up an issue that can allow bureaucrats to promote more regulation and taxes is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Of course, according to them their motives are pure as they are only acting in our best interest. That leads to demonizing those who don't follow their lead: referring to them as "climate change deniers."

Finally, NOAA changed regulations a few years ago to allow local weather observers to make "adjustments" to reported high temperatures if they didn't think the equipment was reporting a high enough temperature. This took the entire measurement system from objective to subjective.

I confess I'm in the category that simply doesn't know what to believe. What bothers me most is that it is generally accepted science that there have been at least five ice ages on Earth, with very warm periods in between. Actual evidence supports this-- such as carving of land by glaciers in areas that are warm and dry today. These all occurred long before we were driving SUV"s and tractors belching out carbon dioxide emissions. My question: "how did the Earth warm up on its own to recover from these ice ages?" Scientists cannot explain that-- they have only theories. So there are only "theories" about how the planet warmed itself and came out of ice ages, but supposed "certainty" about a warming spell that is believed to be taking place right now, and what is causing it (us.)

From Wikipedia: "There have been at least five major ice ages in the earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes."

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

I have two friends who are space physicists. PhDs who work every day in that field. (Didn't even know that existed until I met them.) AFAIK, they don't know each other - move in completely different circles.

They do not laugh at anthropogenic global warming.

They understand the seriousness of the agenda behind it.

The supposed scientific claims? Yeah, those, they laugh at.


When you have to silence dissent, make up data, and push phony computer models that somehow manage to produce exactly the results you want no matter what data is fed into them, it's not science.

 

[Baby Grand]

I have two friends who are space physicists. PhDs who work every day in that field. (Didn't even know that existed until I met them.) AFAIK, they don't know each other - move in completely different circles.

They do not laugh at anthropogenic global warming.

They understand the seriousness of the agenda behind it.

The supposed scientific claims? Yeah, those, they laugh at.


When you have to silence dissent, make up data, and push phony computer models that somehow manage to produce exactly the results you want no matter what data is fed into them, it's not science.

It's fake news.