We need a war.

[Glaucus]

I guess to an extent this argument is about whether you think humans are part of nature, or above nature. I believe we are part of it, we have the same right to survive as other organisms, but also they have the same right to survive as us. As now most of the natural controls are removed on humanity, humans should set their own controls to keep us in "equalibrium" with the rest of the planet.

We our both nature and above nature. we have evolved passed the need for nature and can survive regardless.

As someone else has already said we can already save full genetics and clone. we can allready alter dna to improve species and it won't be to long before we have almost an unlimited knowledge and understanding of it.

 

[Tefal]

Im with this, when Mayan calendar ends we're all DOOMED!!!

Pfft Gregorian calender ftw.

Fools and their lack of fore planning, if you can't make a decent calender you deserve to be killed by the Spanish.

 

[Stefnay]

Gregorian calender was based on the Mayan calender and is more accurate than the Gregorian and been going for thousands of years longer

 

[Tefal]

Gregorian calender was based on the Mayan calender and is more accurate than the Gregorian and been going for thousands of years longer

pfft we don;t have an end date, and it hasn't been going longer cause the tards are dead now.

 

[Glaucus]

Im with this, when Mayan calendar ends we're all DOOMED!!!

but aren't the myan calenders about change, not complete destruction.

 

[Tefal]

but aren't the myan calenders about change, not complete destruction.

Claiming they mean destruction or change is probbably on the level of claiming thats what a leap year is it;s generality just a mathematical nesecity, because of our imperfect rotation/tilt/orbit.

 

[Amp34]

your hilarious, thats all i can say, 10%

Ok after a quick google I can't find anything about the UK as a whole but I have found Scotlands:

Over 50 percent of the land area of Scotland is covered by semi-natural vegetation of which heather moorland and peatland are the predominant types. Less than 3 percent is urban or rural development.

Now that sounds good right?

This is a distinctive characteristic of Scotland in relation to the other parts of the UK. Nowhere else has such a high proportion of semi-natural land cover or so little built-up land. Many parts of Scotland are of high nature conservation value, however, Scotland also has a very low proportion of native woodlands. Broadleaved, mixed and native conifer woodlands account for only around 2 percent, whereas (mainly exotic) coniferous plantations make up 12 percent.

http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/education/advances4/7-land-cover-map-scotland.asp

Or maybe not for the rest of the UK..

And another for the EU (but unfortunately not the UK), the actual data doesn't seem to be 100% about just the % of natural landscape left but I think it's close enough for our purposes.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/landscape/ch5.htm

And to extrapolate slightly, we have a similar population density to Germany and a higher density than Denmark so around 15-20% sounds reasonable. Then bear in mind this and the Scotland study are actually about semi natural landscape, 10% doesn't sound too far does it...

Another article states:

Worldwide, humans have converted approximately 29 percent of the land area—almost 3.8 billion ha—to agriculture and urban or built-up areas (WRR calculations).

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache...system+percentage+uk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

And that's with only 6-7 Billion.

 

[Tefal]

your hilarious, thats all i can say, 10%

You know before we got here Britain was nearly covered in forest

Worldwide, humans have converted approximately 29 percent of the land area—almost 3.8 billion ha—to agriculture and urban or built-up areas (WRR calculations).

I think that's amazing and wonderful. WE;ve had so little impact in area yet changed so much

 

[Amp34]

well for one it wont, 50 years to make 12 billion people is silly.

but after that **** the other continents and build what we need.

Ok yeah, that was a bit extreme, I got the maths wrong.

we do not need diversity. We do not need any explosion. It is pure scaremongering.

Diversity is very important and it would be a serious disaster if diversity was massively reduced.

It's in response to a question that was asked by Von Smallhausen, I was answering in a general sense about the overall picture I have of the forums posters (loose though that may be). I'd like to believe that neither the left or the right would want war but traditionally the right (conservatives with a small C) have been the group who profit most from and are most inclined towards war although obviously the left has their fair share of warmongers.

Ok, thanks, I was also interested as to why Von Smallhausen brought it up in the first place, but that makes sense now (well as much sense as pigeon holing anything does).

 

[Tefal]

Diversity is very important and it would be a serious disaster if diversity was massively reduced.

But we have destroyed diversity and it;s increased our production yield by hundreds of percent so far.

And by removing natural environment we could grow just one thing, near perfectly.

 

[Amp34]

I think that's amazing and wonderful. WE;ve had so little impact in area yet changed so much

But does that include areas already destroyed but not used for agriculture? Or areas that are changed drastically but can just be classed as natural, say Dartmooresk places?

I would hazard a guess that around 50% of the earth's land surface has been affected negatively by humans. But I can't find that at the moment.

Right back to my dissertation...

 

[Amp34]

But we have destroyed diversity and it;s increased our production yield by hundreds of percent so far.

And by removing natural environment we could grow just one thing, near perfectly.

A disaster for life as a whole, not just humans. Having said that you have your one perfect crop swaying in the wind with it's beaming farmer looking over it (oh wait, it's inside and probably attended to by a machine), and then a bacteria mutates and wipes out the entire crop....

There is a reason governments are spending millions on seed "banks" to keep crop diversity for generations to come.

It's unlikely lif on earth will ever be extinguished completely but destruction t just bacteria would probably be easier than you think.

 

[Tefal]

I would hazard a guess that around 50% of the earth's land surface has been affected negatively by humans.

I would say none has. AS we've burnt and cleared what came before we've created new environments than there where be for and new creature or old ones that have adapted have taken over.

 

[Tefal]

A disaster for life as a whole, not just humans. Having said that you have your one perfect crop swaying in the wind with it's beaming farmer looking over it (oh wait, it's inside and probably attended to by a machine), and then a bacteria mutates and wipes out the entire crop....

except of course the building is sealed and so full of anti bacterial agents as to negate that. and anyway you have many buildings and many crops. (plus resistant crops) and your scenario could happen now but it doesn't.

 

[Deleted member 61728]

Im with this, when Mayan calendar ends we're all DOOMED!!!

I wonder why this sort of thing doesn't appear on the news much doomsday and all that stuff along with ufos etc.

*patiently awaits a tin foil hat man comment*

 

[Amp34]

I would say none has. AS we've burnt and cleared what came before we've created new environments than there where be for and new creature or old ones that have adapted have taken over.

Scientist disagree, diversity and biomass plummets when this happens, in no way can it be considered good for the environment.

except of course the building is sealed and so full of anti bacterial agents as to negate that. and anyway you have many buildings and many crops. (plus resistant crops) and your scenario could happen now but it doesn't.

And Nuclear powerstations have saveguards to stop them exploding, oh wait, Chiobyl!

It's all very well having the toughest security and protection, it can all go wrong. The Scenario has happened, about 100 years ago thousands were starving in Ireland due to pototo blight. At the moment we don't have much of a problem BECAUSE we have a huge diversity in crops being grown. There are dozens of strains of wheat for example, more different crops stops the sort of scenario becoming a reality at the moment. And as I said before governments understand this and are investing millions in sterile places to store seeds in case of a problem in the future.

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

http://images.broadwayworld.com/upload/16109/New Folder/11.jpg

*fap*

Each to their own.

 

[Glaucus]

And Nuclear powerstations have saveguards to stop them exploding, oh wait, Chiobyl!
.

except they turned them off and modern reactors, it simply can't happen as you have to add fuel to make the reactor go, where Chernobyl you had excess fuel and you had to control the reaction. (I know that's not exactly what happens, but in laymen terms)

 

[Tefal]

And Nuclear powerstations have saveguards to stop them exploding, oh wait, Chiobyl!

one you spelt it wrong, two that's the worst example you could have chosen. if you read up on it you'll understand why.

 

[Glaucus]

There are dozens of strains of wheat for example, more different crops stops the sort of scenario becoming a reality at the moment. And as I said before governments understand this and are investing millions in sterile places to store seeds in case of a problem in the future.

And that will never change, just because you have vertical farming, doesn't mean you would use identical crops in the thousands and thousands of farms.

Yet more scaremongering in face of no facts.