Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Agriculture: Unsustainable Resource Depletion Began 10,000 Years

Expand Messages
  • Anona Mouse
    Hi Mike, My source is knowing the behavior of ions in solution from my study of chemistry, geology, and geochemistry; and, no, I m not talking about
    Message 1 of 42 , Oct 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mike,

      My source is knowing the behavior of ions in solution from my study of chemistry, geology, and geochemistry; and, no, I'm not talking about monocultures. Read Krauskopf and Bird "Introduction to Geochemistry" if you really want to know more. Otherwise, just consider that minerals will dissolve in water to the extent of their solubility constants. This will also be influenced by the common ion effect. The dissolved ions include trace elements like boron, typically in very small amounts because they just aren't that soluble to begin with. Trees and other plants will draw this water into their roots and transpire it through leaves above ground, basically. The trees don't suck up all the water, hence some of the nutrients remain in solution to join runoff going to the sea. (This is also why the sea is salty.)

      So, I hope you see that believing that everything gets recycled is simply flawed. Without the geological process that <james> thinks are wrong, like mountain building, the amount of trace elements in the earth's crust would be sufficiently depleted that life would be unsupportable. There has to be a continual replenishment of certain elements through geological processes because the biological processes can't be one hundred percent efficient at recycling nutrients.

      Henry

      Mike Stasse wrote:
      Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:49 pm (PDT)
      --- In energyresources@ yahoogroups. com, Anona Mouse <newinwyo@.. .> wrote:
      >
      > Trees also use micronutrients that are lost when leaves fall from
      the trees (for deciduous anyway). This spreads the nutrients around
      but some will be lost through decomposition, dissolution, runoff.
      Even nature is unsustainable without input like ash from volcanism and
      erosion from mountain building.

      Henry I find this very hard to swallow. Do you have a source for this?

      I think in a fully functioning ecosystem with healthy living soil and
      fauna above the ground, nothing is lost, everything gets recycled.

      You're not talking about mono culture by any chance?

      Mike.

      Henry
      Billings, MT

      The Second Amendment-America's Original Homeland Security

      "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
      George W Bush
      Trenton, NJ 23 September 2002

      http://www.pickensplan.com/
    • Denis Frith
      Tom I categorize the natural goods and services civilization is dependent on using for its operations as either irreplaceable natural material resources
      Message 42 of 42 , Nov 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom
        I categorize the natural goods and services civilization is dependent on using for its operations as either irreplaceable natural material resources (INMR), so natural capital, or replenishable natural material resources (RNMR), so natural income. You talk about the stockpiles of natural capital being increased. That is not possible. The oil stock is being irreversibly drawn down. So is fossil aquifer water. There are many components of that natural capital that have been depleted by our activities. I say that this depletion is a natural law. It is the consequence of our activities.
        You say we can devise means of using natural capital and income more wisely. I agree that can and should be done. It is the challenge that should be faced. It will, however, increase the time we have available only slightly. I have run my conceptual model for the case where a number of wise moves have been made. The results are in the ER files.
        My apologies for not yet replying to your off line post.

        Denis

        --- On Thu, 6/11/08, wayburn@... <wayburn@...> wrote:
        From: wayburn@... <wayburn@...>
        Subject: [energyresources] Re: Agriculture: Unsustainable Resource Depletion Began 10,000 Years
        To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        Received: Thursday, 6
        November, 2008, 7:25 PM











        Denis,



        Earlier I wrote the passage appended below my signature, which has not

        appeared yet on the ER website. I would like to add the following:



        I understand that man's tenure on earth must end eventually due to

        astronomical and other natural causes. I understood you to mean that the

        activities of man must necessarily shorten that tenure and that nothing man

        does can ever reverse that trend. I understand that the drawdown of natural

        capital must continue for some finite length of time. However, it seems to

        me that the drawdown of natural capital can be redirected toward projects

        that will eventually permit us to increase the length of man's tenure on

        earth beyond what it would have been if natural causes alone and not the

        activities of man were shortening it. When these projects are fully

        operational and the size of the population has been stabilized, the

        stockpiles of natural capital can be increased rather than diminished. I do

        not mean that the exact content of the original stockpiles would be

        restored. I mean that it would be replaced by equivalent, that is, equally

        useful, stockpiles. The important thing is that the activities of man would

        lengthen our tenure on earth rather than shorten it. This is what I wished

        to prove. The difficult part, of course, is to summon the political will.

        Pardon me if I have read more into your thesis than what is there. I think

        you have made a valuable social observation. I do not think that you have

        discovered a new natural law.



        Tom



        Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas

        wayburn@demateriali sm.net

        http://dematerialis m.net/

        http://dematerialis m.wikispaces. com/

        _____



        From: wayburn@demateriali sm.net [mailto:wayburn@demateriali sm.net]

        Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:33 AM

        To: wayburn@demateriali sm.net

        Subject: ER reply



        Denis,



        The system that does the recycling is itself a stockpile of natural capital.

        If you ask how I will recycle the paint that prevents corrosion, you pose a

        difficult problem but one that can be solved. I must thank you for pointing

        out dramatically just how inclusive the energy-invested term has to be, as

        all the repair on the environment must be included. See

        http://dematerialis m.net/remarks. htm for a discussion that was inspired by a

        number of posts on ER or RoE2 a number of years back in which many

        contributors did not see the importance of including in the energy

        investment term everything necessary to support the community and maintain

        it in a steady state. I considered the simplest case of a single energy

        technology, but the complex case is not really different. I used the above

        hyperlink as part of "Energy in a Mark II Economy".



        Tom



        Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas

        wayburn@demateriali sm.net

        http://dematerialis m.net/

        http://dematerialis m.wikispaces. com/



        Denis wrote:



        Tom says below



        <I think I can prove that recycling can be done with energy alone provided it is available in sufficiently large amounts.>

        He then presumes the system is available to carry this out. The

        construction,

        operation and maintenance of that system entails using irreplaceable natural

        material resources (INMR).

        So he is aiming to prove that the 'recycling' process can be done with an

        input

        of energy alone. I will not comment on that issue. I was referring in the

        post

        that he commented on to what can be done in actual operations by a practical

        system. The system has to be set up.

        I do not claim what Tom says I claim. I said

        <You make the common mistake of believing that recycling can be done with energy alone.> and went on to discuss the operational system requirements.

        He seems to have interpreted that as referring to the process entailed.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























        Find your perfect match today at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1012

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.