How To End Radical -Extremist Muslim Terrorism!

[geko]

...hmm, that's not right either because wouldn't you need reason to have belief in koran? Bah, philosophy confuses me, why did i bother posting...

[charles brough]

IMHO it's not about freedom, it's about justice; ...unless perhaps it is about the freedom to be unjust. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate our views of justice. Do you really want to talk about that cause? ~ :huh:

 

 

Do you mean that Muslim militants hate the way we impose what we think is justice? I hope so since I would agree that that is what they probably think. To them, it was not a just thing to do to impose a Judaic parlimentary theocracy in the very "sacred" heart of Islam. Then, they think ii was unjust for us to support it diplomatically, economically and politically. I suspect they also think it has been unjust to deny the displaced Palistineans the right of return and to initiate a long series of "peace negotiations" that always failed because we let Israel continue to fill up what of their land the UN left for them with fortified colonies Israel calls "settlements."

 

I don't question our right to defend ourselves and to kill terrorist militants wherever we can. It is just that there is good reason to think we are not dealing with the cause and that, therefore, we can only expect the problem to grow worse no matter how many Al Queda leaders we assassinate.

[charles brough]

Cause is only a framework upon which a justification for the reason is developed. The same cause is used to justify many different effects; so it should be the motivation, the justification (for suicidal behaviour), that we try to understand.

 

Cause --> Reason (justified by cause) --> Effect

 

A person is motivated by the "reason" for feeling justified in their response (effect). Simply saying religion is the cause, doesn't address how a "reason" or justification is developed into various effects. What is] the reason behind a person feeling any given effect DESERVES to be manifested? Why does anyone deserve what they get, and who decides?

 

Yes, I agree that "cause" is generally used that way. People need a justification for what they do and ideology helps them find it. Amazingly enough, what "evil" people or "the other society" does is miracularly never caused by what you or your society has done. I guess I started using the word differently some time ago when I set out to find what causes civilizations to rise and fall. I set out the find the cause and effect process that was involved. Ever since I have used the word in that sense when dealing with social and natural science subjects.

 

 

 

Many people are bullied, but what brings a person to feel suicidal?

With some words edited, my first post might now make more sense....

...yada, yada, yada

 

Many people are bullied, but what brings a person to feel suicidal?

 

Isn't it when [one feels the reason is] all other options are exhausted?] If there is no hope or one is trapped and powerless, then it is the last option. And when a source for that feeling can be identified, then retaliatory suicide can occur. Does that seem like a defect, or a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation?

 

Is there any other reason for suicide? Do I assume too much?

Is the distinction between "reason/justification" and "cause" a valid point? ...or am I way off topic?

~ :huh:

 

I think you explained it very well. Also, I do not think of it as a defect because it is biological. It is a facet of human and other primate nature. We evolved as small group primates and can only function in huge societies because of being united by our ideological systems. They restore the sense of community we felt and needed in the small groups. And when those ideological systems break down as they are in modern times, people feel the same stress and hostility that causes all other small group social animals to break up when their group size grows too large. It is especially hard on young males entering adulthood and for the first time in great need of group status but unable to get it. As I show in "The Last Civilization," when this stress becomes unbearable, we manage to restore ideological unity.

[charles brough]

Interesting. I generally move forward under the assumption of reason 1 > belief > reason 2 > cause > effect.

 

So in context it would be, say, koran > belief in koran > want to experience what koran promises > motivation to act in a manner that you see promises being realised (e.g. kill infidels) > suicide bomb

 

I think this assumes objective reasons though whereas cause > reason > effect assumes subjective? I don't know.

 

Yes, I agree. As long as we deal in non-theistic science, we should be able to see accurate cause and effect processes in human society. That is, as long as we are not interpreting social science data in ways the social theorists and secular society does inorder to avoid offense to the old religions. In other words, to be objective, the forum cannot seek to avoid compromising science in order to avoid confict with the faithful.

[Essay]

...restore the sense of community we felt and needed in the small groups. And when those ideological systems break down as they are in modern times, people feel the same stress and hostility that causes all other small group social animals to break up when their group size grows too large. It is especially hard on young males entering adulthood and for the first time in great need of group status but unable to get it. As I show in "The Last Civilization," when this stress becomes unbearable, we manage to restore ideological unity.

...I'm reminded of the adolescent male elephants who (when there are not enough older bulls around to model behaviour) gang up to squash rhinos, vandalize, and cause trouble in general throughout their range. :)

 

Many "causes" can generate (or moderate) the same behaviour; so I don't worry much about the particular "cause" of an effect, but rather focus on the subjective justification and reasons for behaviour based on the subjective interpretation of (cause) circumstances.

===

 

Yes Geko, I think the subjective view may be helpful....

I have wondered, when they talk about "wiping a country off of the map," if they might mean it literally (about the map), and not really care that a country could exist somewhere else (far away) on the face of the Earth. I sometimes wonder how those nuances would get translated in media reports too. But more generally.... ;)

 

 

In a culture where one's honor is framed in terms of family history--perhaps back to the time of a prophet--and where honor may equally be an expression of one's fidelity to a religious ethic and worldview, I'd expect disrupting a culture's long continuity is bound to break some honor codes. Many cultures value a secured honor above material security.

 

Just think of the farmers in India, where they are "encouraged" to take out loans for planting Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops (which require large pesticide applications). So when the weather doesn't work out and the yields are too low to pay back the loan, some farmers are attempting suicide by drinking the pesticides. Many who are not killed (...I recently heard up to 3/day, countrywide*), are left paralyzed or with other severe neurological impairments as well as engendering subsequent birth defects and cancers.

 

 

*

LANCET May 7, 2011

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60639-9/fulltext"During the past 24 months, 500 farmers committed suicide either by consuming easily available pesticides or by hanging in Maharashtra state alone, often owing to heavy debt as a result of repeated droughts. Because of this, farmers cannot afford to educate their children and make them work on the farm, neglecting their rights to education and childhood."

...as well as....

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_suicides_in_India

 

When your family's heritage--the land--is lost, and the future is nothing but increasing debt, then the options quickly narrow.

 

"Child spraying pesticide over soya crop without mask"

...

 

LANCET also says: "Mahatma Gandhi advised that one could only solve villagers' problems by residing in these villages and not by planning from big cities with air-conditioned offices.

Reading the Series on Indian health, we felt that Gandhi's words had gone unheeded.

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest."

===

===

 

....sooo....

Disruptions to social systems (especially long-standing cultures) often seem to happen when an effort is made to "develop" and "help" a particular population. [see World Bank & IMF]....

 

....Along the lines of that wisdom from Gandhi, and....

 

In a way similar to how E. O. Wilson says that we should not strive to transcend Nature, but rather aspire to be as good as Nature, I think we should aspire to "improve" existing cultures (without changing the overall system), rather than striving to replace the existing system with a "modern, tried-n-true" system [see World Bank & IMF]....*

 

*

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2010/03/30/local-activists-surprised-as-clinton-apologizes-to-haiti

Halifax; Tue, Mar 30, 2010

...former US President Bill Clinton has apologized for flooding Haiti with cheap American rice beginning in the mid 1990s. During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports made it impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced farmers off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.

 

“It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake,” Clinton — now a UN special envoy to Haiti — told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. “I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.”

 

AND this is a Global Problem!"

...my added emphasis

...world leaders are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries dependent on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that poor countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by rebuilding their own food production.

 

“A combination of food aid, but also cheap imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that has to be reversed,” Holmes told AP. “That's a global phenomenon, but Haiti’s a prime example. I think this is where we should start.”

 

AND would the following drive some people to the end of their ropes?

...author's emphasis

The Clinton administration forced Jean Bertrand Aristide to agree to cut rice tariffs drastically when the US restored the Haitian president to power in October 1994. Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected president, had been overthrown by a US-backed military coup in 1991. In return for $770 million in international loans and aid, Aristide was required to agree to a business-friendly, “structural adjustment” program that aside from cutting food tariffs, also included freezing the minimum wage, cutting the size of the civil service and privatizing public utilities. (Aristide annoyed the US by being slow to implement such policies making Bill Clinton’s apology this month all the more surprising.)

 

Janet Eaton, trade and environment campaigner for Sierra Club Canada, says members of the global democracy movement have long known about the failures of the globalized food system and Clinton’s apology to Haitians only reinforces what many activists have talked and written about for years.

 

“When high-profile leaders admit that economic globalization isn’t working, then it’s time for governments to get on board and look at alternatives.” Eaton adds. “It is time to admit that these failures exist and put an end to the aggressive free trade frenzy that is now occurring in Canada, the US and Europe as they vie for foreign markets, raw materials and unfettered free trade.”

 

...OR...

Some people are always going to feel the brunt of change more acutely, whatever the source of disruption is that affects one's long-standing culture; ...a culture by-the-way, which probably bears little relationship to the "national" borders established several generations ago by some newcomers (...was that after WWI, or after WWII, or a bit of both?). Even the Algerians way back in the 50's (and a hundred years before that)....

===

 

And after several generations (or more) of the same old patterns and promises being repeated....

 

Well, I'd imagine that the situation does seem to become a bit unreasonable every once and a while.

 

....So perhaps "hypocrisy" might be identifiable as a defect worth considering as relevant.

 

===?

 

p.s. ...or we could just focus on how “It is time to admit that these failures exist and put an end to the aggressive free trade frenzy...."

[charles brough]

...I'm reminded of the adolescent male elephants who (when there are not enough older bulls around to model behaviour) gang up to squash rhinos, vandalize, and cause trouble in general throughout their range. :)

 

Many "causes" can generate (or moderate) the same behaviour; so I don't worry much about the particular "cause" of an effect, but rather focus on the subjective justification and reasons for behaviour based on the subjective interpretation of (cause) circumstances.

 

.

Yes, our ideological systems work to slant or rationalize what we want or need to make it consistent with what others believe.

 

Yes Geko, I think the subjective view may be helpful....

I have wondered, when they talk about "wiping a country off of the map," if they might mean it literally (about the map), and not really care that a country could exist somewhere else (far away) on the face of the Earth. I sometimes wonder how those nuances would get translated in media reports too. But more generally.... ;)

 

 

In a culture where one's honor is framed in terms of family history--perhaps back to the time of a prophet--and where honor may equally be an expression of one's fidelity to a religious ethic and worldview, I'd expect disrupting a culture's long continuity is bound to break some honor codes. Many cultures value a secured honor above material security.

 

Just think of the farmers in India, where they are "encouraged" to take out loans for planting Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops (which require large pesticide applications). So when the weather doesn't work out and the yields are too low to pay back the loan, some farmers are attempting suicide by drinking the pesticides. Many who are not killed (...I recently heard up to 3/day, countrywide*), are left paralyzed or with other severe neurological impairments as well as engendering subsequent birth defects and cancers.

 

 

*...as well as....

http://www.pbs.org/f..._of_suicid.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_suicides_in_India

 

When your family's heritage--the land--is lost, and the future is nothing but increasing debt, then the options quickly narrow.

 

"Child spraying pesticide over soya crop without mask"

...

 

LANCET also says: "Mahatma Gandhi advised that one could only solve villagers' problems by residing in these villages and not by planning from big cities with air-conditioned offices.

Reading the Series on Indian health, we felt that Gandhi's words had gone unheeded.

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest."

===

===

 

....sooo....

Disruptions to social systems (especially long-standing cultures) often seem to happen when an effort is made to "develop" and "help" a particular population. [see World Bank & IMF]....

 

....Along the lines of that wisdom from Gandhi, and....

 

In a way similar to how E. O. Wilson says that we should not strive to transcend Nature, but rather aspire to be as good as Nature, I think we should aspire to "improve" existing cultures (without changing the overall system), rather than striving to replace the existing system with a "modern, tried-n-true" system [see World Bank & IMF]....*

 

*

http://www.thecoast....ogizes-to-haiti

 

 

AND this is a Global Problem!"

...my added emphasis

 

 

AND would the following drive some people to the end of their ropes?

...author's emphasis

 

 

...OR...

Some people are always going to feel the brunt of change more acutely, whatever the source of disruption is that affects one's long-standing culture; ...a culture by-the-way, which probably bears little relationship to the "national" borders established several generations ago by some newcomers (...was that after WWI, or after WWII, or a bit of both?). Even the Algerians way back in the 50's (and a hundred years before that)....

===

 

And after several generations (or more) of the same old patterns and promises being repeated....

 

Well, I'd imagine that the situation does seem to become a bit unreasonable every once and a while.

 

....So perhaps "hypocrisy" might be identifiable as a defect worth considering as relevant.

 

===?

 

p.s. ...or we could just focus on how “It is time to admit that these failures exist and put an end to the aggressive free trade frenzy...."

 

I would sum that all up as showing in detail what happens to the capitalistic system when society is breaking down. As a result, I focus on what causes society to break down.

[Essay]

I would sum that all up as showing in detail what happens to the capitalistic system when society is breaking down.

I thought this was showing what happens to societies (suicide or suicidal reprisals) when the capitalistic (or whatever economic) system is breaking down. Shouldn't we be focusing on fixing the economics, which sustains a society, so that history and honor and hope are not taken away from individuals?

===

 

 

As a result, I focus on what causes society to break down.

Oh, right! We're saying the same thing, but from different perspectives it seems; if you are saying the way a society runs its economy is based on the society's ideology, right?

 

~ ;)

[charles brough]

I thought this was showing what happens to societies (suicide or suicidal reprisals) when the capitalistic (or whatever economic) system is breaking down. Shouldn't we be focusing on fixing the economics, which sustains a society, so that history and honor and hope are not taken away from individuals?

===

Oh, right! We're saying the same thing, but from different perspectives it seems; if you are saying the way a society runs its economy is based on the society's ideology, right?

~ ;)

 

 

From my perspective, it is not a matter of what we need to do to fix things because we are part of a process that we cannot and never have controlled. But that process does work. It accounts for how we built our civilization in the first place. We never planned it. It socially evolved. The terrorist attacks, the default problem in Europe, the political polarization here in the US, the increase in individuals going berzeark and an observable increase nation-wide in stress caused illness, dishonesty and hostility over the last three generations are all ultimately due to one fact:" the society is built on a secular ideology trying to unite a globe populated with four mainline religions bonding four seperate societies. Our secular ideology is having trouble doing that. As the dominant power, our showing weakness causes an insidious process in which the world becomes ever more difficult to deal with which, in turn, strains us and makes us increasingly less able to fullfull our role. When we slip away, it will mean the end of our civilization. Our secular ideals will be discredited. The others, the Marxist, the Muslim, the Hindu portions will discard them and revert back to their more rigid ideologies and cease to any longer cooperate. It will be each pushing against the others for the Earth's declining resources.

[Essay]

From my perspective, it is not a matter of what we need to do to fix things because we are part of a process that we cannot and never have controlled. But that process does work.

....It will be each pushing against the others for the Earth's declining resources.

But how well does it work???

 

 

 

This idea is at best outdated, if not false." ~;)

===

 

Sociological theory is handy, but learning from history should lead to explanations on how to avoid repeating history rather than explaining how we will repeat the patterns of the past.

 

If our ideologies are based upon incomplete information and/or innaccurate understanding of how the world works, it shouldn't be surprising that those ideologies, which ferry civilization forward into the future, fail eventually.

 

Civilizations have been repeating the same fundamental mistakes since we discovered fire, because we didn't understand how the whole system works--or our place in the system either.

===

 

It is only within the past decade that a few have learned what science has discovered about the carbon cycle. We have always thought air, water, and sunlight acted upon a stage to control ecosystems such as soil. We did not know how soils, and their humic substances [HS] such as humic & fulvic acids, humic acid precursors, and humins are active players on the stage of the carbon cycle. <My emphasis added to this 2002 quote.>

 

"The fact that these matters are little studied is certainly due to the traditional view that HS are (with the exception of photolytic cleavage) inert, refractory, or in some other way passive in ecosystems. This idea is at best outdated, if not false." ~p.10 (2002, Steinberg; Ecology of Humic Substances....)

 

"The HS are to be granted the role of an independent ecosystem component, such as atmosphere, water, or light...." ~p.36/37 (2002, Steinberg; Ecology of Humic Substances....)

 

This is revolutionary!

 

Also, from 2007... Whitbeck & Cardon; The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective) ~p.31

 

“Considering all the pools and fluxes of Carbon within the ecosystems, Carbon-cycling below ground is increasingly being recognized as one of the most significant components of the carbon cycle.”

....

 

“...by approximately one order of magnitude larger than the global annual rate of fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic emissions."

 

&

 

“Thus small changes in the equilibrium between inputs and decomposition could have significant impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”

 

The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective

Published: MAR-2007; Elsevier, Hardbound, 232 Pages

ISBN 10: 0-12-088775-4 ISBN 13: 978-0-12-088775-0

Imprint: ACADEMIC PRESS

===

===

...and "significant impacts" on soil fertility/productivity too!!!

 

Our economic theories do not take this fundamental into account. Thus history is a story of land exhaustion, and progress towards new land and resources to make up for exhaused land.

 

The carbon cycle, and the balance of oxidized and reduced carbon, can be a basis (or needs to be the basis) for establishing and accounting for long-term value.

 

This new knowledge brings new options for evolving "sustainable" ideologies.

 

~ :)

 

...that should work better....

[charles brough]

Sociological theory is handy, but learning from history should lead to explanations on how to avoid repeating history rather than explaining how we will repeat the patterns of the past.

 

If our ideologies are based upon incomplete information and/or innaccurate understanding of how the world works, it shouldn't be surprising that those ideologies, which ferry civilization forward into the future, fail eventually.

 

Civilizations have been repeating the same fundamental mistakes since we discovered fire, because we didn't understand how the whole system works--or our place in the system either.

 

I see us able to be bonded into religion-bonded societies that later on divide. The dividing tends to break down society because we are small group primates that need a common and united ideological bond to substitute for the small groups we evolved living in.

 

So, conditions grow worse as the old ideological system continues to divide and the society weakens and ceases to lead the world. When conditions get bad enough, people swing over to a more advanced new ideological system. Thus, the human total cultural heritage continues to grow, our population on Earth continues to increase and, theoretcially, we continue to increase our dominance of our environment or territory.

 

Unfortunately, the dynamics speed up as we approach the limits of our earthly territory and are making little if any progres in expanding it.

 

It is only within the past decade that a few have learned what science has discovered about the carbon cycle. We have always thought air, water, and sunlight acted upon a stage to control ecosystems such as soil. We did not know how soils, and their humic substances [HS] such as humic & fulvic acids, humic acid precursors, and humins are active players on the stage of the carbon cycle. <My emphasis added to this 2002 quote.>

 

"The fact that these matters are little studied is certainly due to the traditional view that HS are (with the exception of photolytic cleavage) inert, refractory, or in some other way passive in ecosystems. This idea is at best outdated, if not false." ~p.10 (2002, Steinberg; Ecology of Humic Substances....)

 

"The HS are to be granted the role of an independent ecosystem component, such as atmosphere, water, or light...." ~p.36/37 (2002, Steinberg; Ecology of Humic Substances....)

 

This is revolutionary!

 

Also, from 2007... Whitbeck & Cardon; The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective) ~p.31

 

“Considering all the pools and fluxes of Carbon within the ecosystems, Carbon-cycling below ground is increasingly being recognized as one of the most significant components of the carbon cycle.”

....

 

“...by approximately one order of magnitude larger than the global annual rate of fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic emissions."

 

&

 

“Thus small changes in the equilibrium between inputs and decomposition could have significant impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”

 

The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective

Published: MAR-2007; Elsevier, Hardbound, 232 Pages

ISBN 10: 0-12-088775-4 ISBN 13: 978-0-12-088775-0

Imprint: ACADEMIC PRESS

===

===

...and "significant impacts" on soil fertility/productivity too!!!

 

Our economic theories do not take this fundamental into account. Thus history is a story of land exhaustion, and progress towards new land and resources to make up for exhaused land.

 

The carbon cycle, and the balance of oxidized and reduced carbon, can be a basis (or needs to be the basis) for establishing and accounting for long-term value.

 

This new knowledge brings new options for evolving "sustainable" ideologies. ~ :)...that should work better....

I'd like to know more about the implications of the carbon cycle. . .

[Essay]

I see us able to be bonded into religion-bonded societies that later on divide. The dividing tends to break down society because we are small group primates that need a common and united ideological bond to substitute for the small groups we evolved living in.

 

So, conditions grow worse as the old ideological system continues to divide and the society weakens and ceases to lead the world. When conditions get bad enough, people swing over to a more advanced new ideological system. Thus, the human total cultural heritage continues to grow, our population on Earth continues to increase and, theoretcially, we continue to increase our dominance of our environment or territory.

 

Unfortunately, the dynamics speed up as we approach the limits of our earthly territory and are making little if any progres in expanding it.

 

**Well yes, I suppose so. Old paradigms fall when new ones are revealed, more or less....

 

The grass was always greener on the other side of the hill, but nowadays somebody else is already there (or was there and left it less green). We do need more land, but land is a highly evolved creature (that we can't expect to find on other planets).

 

"The soil, fauna, flora, root, shoot, herbivores, and predators in many ways act like a single, connected organism."

 

"Future significant advances in understanding and management will come from a holistic approach to the "'rhizo-organism.'" --p.67

The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective; Cordon & Whitbeck; 2007; Elsevier

"Rhizosphere" refers to the root zone of the soil, where microbes cycle the nutrients....

===

 

What we need is a way to make more land (more productive soil). That would be a valuable commodity. I coined a phrase to explain "biochar," which is essentially the nexus between the labile and refractory parts of the carbon cycle, which addresses that point.

Biochar: It's as if there is more land for each plant.

 

 

Many of the cultures from which terrorism seems to come, are old or "time tested" and entrenched in their relatively sustainable ways. When new cultures come in and disrupt the distribution of land and resources, the traditional sustainability breaks down and something must develop to carry things forward (new organized crime, corrupt politics, and old ethnic divisions become the justification for explaining problems and seeking redress or solutions). Or new ethnic (or whatever ideological) divisions will become the justification leading to similar outcomes... or something along those lines... if you get the gist.

===

 

In General:

The World Bank and the IMF have been increasingly requiring cultures to change. Changing these long-established cultures results in these problems, especially when the unsustainability of the "encouraged" changes is becoming increasingly evident.

 

And we have the same unsustainability problem anyway, so we might as well work on that since it would help address the motivation for extreme responses from either "less developed" or otherwise different, and well-established, cultures.

 

 

 

I'd like to know more about the implications of the carbon cycle. . .

 

From a chemist's perspective, you can just take the definition of life out of the equations and view the whole ecosystem as a big chemical equilibrium. The balance of oxidized and reduced carbon (have you heard about redox reactions?) affects all the other systems, and it is this which modern civilization has recently (and increasingly) disrupted.

 

But that doesn't help explain much. It is the recent realization of the "land's" importance to the carbon cycle that changes (or should change) some old, unsustainable paradigms.

 

Regarding the land, land use, and the humus (labile carbon) and humic substances [HS], which bring the "richness" to the land....

"These works contribute not only to the replacement of untenable old paradigms which consider HS as inert or refractory, but also explain the energetic gap in boreal and most non-eutrophicated waterbodies."

 

"In this superabundance of new knowledge and the subsequent change in paradigms, it is clear that the role of HS for freshwater organisms principally is seen as one-directional: as fuel and energy, which is transferred in the aquatic food web by heterotrophs and mixotrophic flagellates and ciliates. It is often overlooked, that HS can have direct adverse or even biocidal effects (Chap. 8.3)." --p.343

From....

Steinberg's "Ecology of Humic Substances in Freshwaters" (2003)

["Freshwaters" also includes the groundwaters and open-water's catchments (similar to watersheds) & even covers brackish and other coastal waters influenced by the land.]

 

 

Addressing people's need for a new paradigm should help with our problems.

 

I have a summary from my presentation last month that seems relevant:

 

#1

Land use, as a central factor in climate change and economy and the 8MDG, needs to be reconsidered in light of the discovery that humus is so much more influential as an ecosystem component. It is only within the past decade that this large pool of labile carbon--which humus comprises--has been increasingly recognized to be such a fundamental ecosystem player, and strong influence upon climate.

 

We've been struggling with economy (management of ecosystems) for many cycles of history, and are still dealing with the same fundamental problems of resource depletion, because our knowledge of the ecosystem functions (ecology) was incomplete.

 

New ways of managing and valuing resources (more effective economy) should emerge from a better understanding of ecosystem function, now that we more completely understand the major variables controlling ecosystem dynamics.

===

 

#2

Biochar/biomass management, as a tool to effectively manage humus, [as well as creating a carbon wedge itself], is ideally suited to help transform the land-use sector into a force for sustainability in both social and economic aspects of most 8MDG. Additionally, pyrolysis technology can be a supplementary new--yet sustainable--part of a developed (or over-developed) and high-tech economy.

 

As somebody who studied the physical (and some social) science most of my life, I feel privileged to be able to grasp the pervasive significance of this "new knowledge" and I'm anxious to share this, since it should help the economy and many of our other problems. What part of these new paradigms are you curious about? Although this new knowledge can benefit a developed economy with high-tech research & development for targeted purposes and designer products, I prefer to focus on the new paradigms relating to land use and how these can help address most of the 8 Millennium Development Goals. But I can answer questions on either aspect.

===

 

just fyi:

 

...from "The Rhizosphere: ...."

"The release of carbon in the form of root exudates may account for up to 40 percent of the [photosynthetically fixed]... matter produced by plants." --p.58

 

"The interplay between microorganisms and microfauna determines the rate of nutrient cycling and strongly enhances the availability of mineral nutrients to plants." --p.58

 

40% !!! Wow, evolution really strongly favors plants that feed the soil. That is an extrordinary amount of energy to devote to feeding the microbes of the soil (though since the microbes provide nitrogen and other nutrients, it makes sense).

 

Tillage disrupts this mutualism, but new knowledge is giving us new options--such as keyline tillage....

 

"The unintended consequences of agriculture extend well beyond agricultural landscapes and include environmental degradation and social displacement." --p.127

 

"We recognize that ultimately the transition to ecologically sound, sustainable food production systems that meet human needs will be complex and will require fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies as well as the application of ecolgical knowledge to agricultural management." --p.148

...also from....The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective

 

...and for the whole pedosphere ...and for the whole biogeochemosphere--Gaia's Perspective!

~ :)

[charles brough]

**Well yes, I suppose so. Old paradigms fall when new ones are revealed, more or less....

 

The grass was always greener on the other side of the hill, but nowadays somebody else is already there (or was there and left it less green). We do need more land, but land is a highly evolved creature (that we can't expect to find on other planets).

 

The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective; Cordon & Whitbeck; 2007; Elsevier

"Rhizosphere" refers to the root zone of the soil, where microbes cycle the nutrients....

===

 

What we need is a way to make more land (more productive soil). That would be a valuable commodity. I coined a phrase to explain "biochar," which is essentially the nexus between the labile and refractory parts of the carbon cycle, which addresses that point.

Biochar: It's as if there is more land for each plant.

 

 

Many of the cultures from which terrorism seems to come, are old or "time tested" and entrenched in their relatively sustainable ways. When new cultures come in and disrupt the distribution of land and resources, the traditional sustainability breaks down and something must develop to carry things forward (new organized crime, corrupt politics, and old ethnic divisions become the justification for explaining problems and seeking redress or solutions). Or new ethnic (or whatever ideological) divisions will become the justification leading to similar outcomes... or something along those lines... if you get the gist.

===

 

In General:

The World Bank and the IMF have been increasingly requiring cultures to change. Changing these long-established cultures results in these problems, especially when the unsustainability of the "encouraged" changes is becoming increasingly evident.

 

And we have the same unsustainability problem anyway, so we might as well work on that since it would help address the motivation for extreme responses from either "less developed" or otherwise different, and well-established, cultures.

 

We had an excellent system to bring about this transition to our modern secular developing type nation. Our secular ideals are all shaped by a social science theory in a way that avoids conflict with the old religions. Then it tends to draw their attention and focus from the old system to our new secular ideals of equality, democracy and "the American Dream.” The problem now is that “the American Dream” is shown up as an intense focus on millions of unemployed in our media and broadcast abroad. Also, our invastions of Islam and defense of Isreal is working against secularization. The whole trend does not look good.

. . .tive, you can just take the definition of life out of the equations and view the whole ecosystem as a big chemical equilibrium. The balance of oxidized and reduced carbon (have you heard about redox reactions?) affects all the other systems, and it is this which modern civilization has recently (and increasingly) disrupted.

 

But that doesn't help explain much. It is the recent realization of the "land's" importance to the carbon cycle that changes (or should change) some old, unsustainable paradigms.

 

Regarding the land, land use, and the humus (labile carbon) and humic substances [HS], which bring the "richness" to the land....

From....

Steinberg's "Ecology of Humic Substances in Freshwaters" (2003)

["Freshwaters" also includes the groundwaters and open-water's catchments (similar to watersheds) & even covers brackish and other coastal waters influenced by the land.]

 

 

Addressing people's need for a new paradigm should help with our problems.

 

I have a summary from my presentation last month that seems relevant:

 

 

 

As somebody who studied the physical (and some social) science most of my life, I feel privileged to be able to grasp the pervasive significance of this "new knowledge" and I'm anxious to share this, since it should help the economy and many of our other problems. What part of these new paradigms are you curious about? Although this new knowledge can benefit a developed economy with high-tech research & development for targeted purposes and designer products, I prefer to focus on the new paradigms relating to land use and how these can help address most of the 8 Millennium Development Goals. But I can answer questions on either aspect.

===

 

just fyi:

 

...from "The Rhizosphere: ...."

 

 

40% !!! Wow, evolution really strongly favors plants that feed the soil. That is an extrordinary amount of energy to devote to feeding the microbes of the soil (though since the microbes provide nitrogen and other nutrients, it makes sense).

 

Tillage disrupts this mutualism, but new knowledge is giving us new options--such as keyline tillage....

 

...also from....The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective

 

...and for the whole pedosphere ...and for the whole biogeochemosphere--Gaia's Perspective!~ :)

That all seems like a way modern civilization could cointinue to flourish even though unable to expand its territory but is based on two assumptions which may not be correct. One is the rulling out of expanding out into space and the other is the assumption that we can and will continue to use science and technology to adapt to the increasingly expense our diminishing space and resources here on Earth have brought us to.

 

In regard to the first, if we managed to colonize within our own solar system, it could be as you say, no economic boon to us. If we sent space ships to plants like ours and one or some succeeded in the decades to centuries it took to reach it, manking could regrow there and continue to expand throughout the universe regardless of what happens here on Earth. The big question is whether or not this is important to us. Do we really care? The only thing that would cause us to care would be a science-based ideology that set it as one of its ideals. Since people lose hope when their ideals prove unrewarding as seems to be happening now, they can well reach a stage in the next few decades in which they would be attracted to a new such system of ideals.

 

In regard to the second, one of the most definite symptoms of a declining civilization is the regression back to the old ideological systems because of the rise of social problems. We have been fighting this trend in the West and especially the US since the Vietnam war and the Hippy Movement, i.e. since about 1970. Some notice that we have been coasting as far as "pure" or theoretical science is concerned even if not yet technologically. It is of note, however, that our university system is losing engineering, inorganic chemistry, math and physics students to the social, natural sciences and to the arts.

[RonHughes]

The reason is if human beings believe something they are blind to the truth.

[charles brough]

The reason is if human beings believe something they are blind to the truth.

I thought that people believe that their beliefs ARE the truth. If they are wrong, perhaps you miight tell me what IS the Truth? Is it necessarily what YOU believe? I don't mean to be rude; it is just that when it comes to understanding ourselves and the universe, there is no such thing as "truth." it is only what we consider to be the most accurate understanding to date. so EVERYTHING is belief. some is just more accurate than the other . . .

[RonHughes]

I don't believe anything. I may have any opinion about a subject that is unproven or I may know something to be a truth such as if I drop a rock while standing on the Earth's surface I know it will fall to that surface.

[joekgamer]

By "truth", do you refer to an accurate notion, or a precise notion? An accurate notion is one that is close to what is actually, physically correct. A precise notion is one that is "accepted" or "agreed upon", although neither perfectly expresses the concept. Perhaps it would be better to describe it would be as a notion that is "averaged", although that, too, is lacking.