From: CurtAdams (CurtAdams@aol.com)
Date: Fri Dec 19 1997 - 11:04:24 MST
In a message dated 12/19/97 2:10:07 AM, you wrote:
>CurtAdams wrote:
>
>> We started altering the Earth's nitrogen cycle in a major way about 1
century
>> ago.
>
>Who gauged these "major" changes? When were they measured? Where were the
samples
>drawn? What methodology was applied? Which controls were established? How did
the
>researchers document the state of nitrogen in the atmosphere before these
>supposed major changes happened, in order to determine the differential in
change
>rate? In what manner could a rational being find this reseach, in order to
study
>the thesis?
Standard chemistry knowledge. About 1/3 of the nitrogen fixed to ammonia
compounds (the bioavailable form) is done by chemical plants. The numbers
should be in any basic agricultural or chemical reference; I got it from a
recent SciAm article. There are no controls; it's done to get fertilizer,
not to change the world. It changes the world as a side effect (just like
nitrogen-fixing bacteria or photosynthetic plants).
>> When the natural world fails to provide
>What has the natural world failed to provide?
>What natural event does no longer
>take place in the natural world?
Natural food production became inadequate about 10 kya. So humans started
agriculture. It appears we've just hit the limits of natural fish production;
expect a lot more fish farming in the near future.
Generally we don't completely stop events; just change their frequency.
There are a few examples; we don't get swarms of malarial mosquitos in
the American South anymore, but those are exceptional.
>> Rather, it's now the "natural" world which requires the focused effort of
>> large numbers of humans to maintain it in the face of all the other people
who
>> want to change it.
>Indeed, since reason is a
>human phenomenon, and humans are a natural phenomenon, and phenomenons are
the
>dynamic expression of the natural world, any effort to maintain the natural
world
>in a static condition would be contradictory to the essence of that ever-
changing
>natural world.
I'd agree. That's why I put "natural" in quotes. Nonetheless, lots of people
are trying; that's why you can't even bring sled dogs into Antarctica anymore.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:14 MST