Re: Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us* Archived Message
Posted by mack on October 5, 2019, 8:27 pm, in reply to "Re: Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us*"
'is anything Norman Gray writes fundamentally wrong or incorrect?' Interesting question. The short answer is no; the slightly less short answer is it depends; and the longest answer is too long for the time I have to answer, but might look something like the short one, except that it's yes. It's interesting because as a system designer (which is, I presume, just what he is) he should understand that looking at details isolated from their environment, or in this case just one detail isolated from its environment, in detail, does not tell the whole story, far from it. That should be blindingly obvious to any systems designer. Large complex systems (particularly living systems, ask a biologist) cannot be encapsulated by focus on just one element in the system, the real action happens in the ongoing interactions and cycles that occur in the 'gaps', or spaces, between the elements. By singling out 'tree' as the subject in question and showing calculations that 'prove' planting them is not enough to sequester all the carbon that needs to be sequestered is a fool's errand. Aside from the above (missing the whole by aiming fire at but a tiny fragment of the issue), it's almost like we're 'blaming' trees for being insufficient to the task of fixing the shit we created! What arrogance! This focus on smaller details is reminiscent of the materialist/reductionist view of smashing things into smaller and smaller pieces so we might better understand them. Well, I've got one word for those materialist reductionists: Quantum. You see, we went so small that it all ceased to make any sense any more, at least in the terms known as 'physics'. Again, the real action is happening in the bits we don't/can't see. What do they call it? Dark matter/dark energy. Why is it called that? Because we can't see it and don't have a clue what it is, but it makes up the vast majority of everything. I think matter is around 5% of the universe, the rest is 'dark'. So Norm was 'right' so long as we all pretend that his reference frame matters, which it doesn't because it isolates one element from many interacting elements. 'If his thesis is flawed because he's in IT and not ecology, tell us why. You haven't made a case for this.' Ok, it was a glib comment, but I actually said that was why he's in IT and not ecology, which is a bit different. He could indeed develop a better understanding even as an IT merchant. And as a system designer he should know better anyway. Also, what both Rhis sketches and Derek says here is worth taking on board, because they both demonstrate a far superior understanding than poor Norm, who failed the moment he removed 'tree' from its environment. Quite ironic that. Cheers
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- Why Planting Trees Won't Save the Planet - scrabb October 5, 2019, 2:25 pm
- Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us* - mack October 5, 2019, 5:09 pm
- Old, wrong argument. And it says nothing about the sheep. [Sheep? Yes really!] - - Rhisiart Gwilym October 5, 2019, 5:47 pm
- Um, its a steady state even without burying ... - Shyaku October 5, 2019, 7:49 pm
- Apologies to all, but I agree with Dr Gray. Forests are a temporary repository.. - David Macilwain October 6, 2019, 2:07 am
|
|