chipbuttie Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 I posted this on the armagedon thread, I think it deserves a place on here too as its relavent IMO and a good read (even if I do say so myself ) Yeast growing in grape juice in a bottle provide a good example of human behavior on the planet. The yeast go after the sugar in the juice and in the process of metabolizing that sugar, they produce alcohol and carbon dioxide. As they consume the sugar, they also reproduce and their reproductive rate is dependent on the availability of food. Within a few days, at room temperature, the yeast population soars…But, the alcohol is a pollutant as far as the yeast are concerned and as their population rises, so does the level of alcohol. If there is enough sugar in the juice, the yeast will eventually produce so much alcohol that they start to die off rapidly and as the sugar reservoir is depleted, their reproductive rates plummet, leading to a total collapse of the population. So, in turning the juice into wine, the gluttonous, know-no-restraint yeast do themselves in. So is gluttonous, know-no-restraint humanity any smarter, or will we continue to consume oil like yeast scarfs down sugar? The by-products of our immoderate consumption are fossil fuels, which (like alcohol for yeast) are poisonous to us. Can our human arrogance handle the possibility that we may be no more capable of surviving our own compulsive appetites than are unicellular fungi fermenting themselves into oblivion? I hope we are smarter than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wentypence Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I posted this on the armagedon thread, I think it deserves a place on here too as its relavent IMO and a good read (even if I do say so myself ) Yeast growing in grape juice in a bottle provide a good example of human behavior on the planet. The yeast go after the sugar in the juice and in the process of metabolizing that sugar, they produce alcohol and carbon dioxide. As they consume the sugar, they also reproduce and their reproductive rate is dependent on the availability of food. Within a few days, at room temperature, the yeast population soars…But, the alcohol is a pollutant as far as the yeast are concerned and as their population rises, so does the level of alcohol. If there is enough sugar in the juice, the yeast will eventually produce so much alcohol that they start to die off rapidly and as the sugar reservoir is depleted, their reproductive rates plummet, leading to a total collapse of the population. So, in turning the juice into wine, the gluttonous, know-no-restraint yeast do themselves in. So is gluttonous, know-no-restraint humanity any smarter, or will we continue to consume oil like yeast scarfs down sugar? The by-products of our immoderate consumption are fossil fuels, which (like alcohol for yeast) are poisonous to us. Can our human arrogance handle the possibility that we may be no more capable of surviving our own compulsive appetites than are unicellular fungi fermenting themselves into oblivion? I hope we are smarter than that. er, I wouldnt worry about it too much. The world is more than yeast, sugar and grape juice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipbuttie Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 One doesnt farm meat, one farms animals from which meat is derived you know. Show some respect for the creatures that feed us. Should'nt you be telling that to the 'animal farming industry?' as they have no respect for the animals or the effect on the planet. No disrespect to ANY animals reading this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipbuttie Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 er, I wouldnt worry about it too much. The world is more than yeast, sugar and grape juice. I would say that post was minus twenty pence. Some ignorant humans are behaving just like yeast. I'm sorry that this is beyond your comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wentypence Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I would say that post was minus twenty pence. Some ignorant humans are behaving just like yeast. I'm sorry that this is beyond your comprehension. I've heard some funny comparisons before........ "Are you talking to me punk? Huh? Did you say I was like yeast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipbuttie Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 I've heard some funny comparisons before........ "Are you talking to me punk? Huh? Did you say I was like yeast? Yeah I'm talking to you,your yeasty like thrush,numpty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipbuttie Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 I've heard some funny comparisons before........ Okay what about cancer on a human cell? You think thats funny 20 pence worth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayfish Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 The problem with all these analogies - 'Daisyworld / Gaia', 'Yeast', 'Cancer' - is that in the process of being simplified to be better understood by a mass audience they fail to portray the complexities of global warming. There are messages to be gained from each of them - yeast's singleminded maximal use of resources with no thought for conservation might parallel certain portions of human society; The world system as a whole behaves (in some broad senses) similarly to a homeostatically regulated biological system etc. - the cancer one is actually a far worse analogy when you think through it, no matter how intuitively emotive it may appear a primo cognito. They cannot, however, completely convey the intricacies of global climate and anthropogenic impacts on temperature trends, with considerations such as interacting feedback systems and thresholds. It's better to think about the system itself rather than debate based on these ultimately rather poor simplifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Not sure if you mean The Great Global Warming Swindle. But that programme has now been badly discredited by one of it's leading contributors Carl Wunsch Professor of Physical OceanographyMassachusetts Institute of Technology: "An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud. At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest." Full article here: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece Interesting, but he is still not saying that man is the sole reason for GW. See this article he wrote. Article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Interesting, but he is still not saying that man is the sole reason for GW. See this article he wrote. Article. Thanks for that link, a good read. My point about Durkins film was that he presented Professor Wunsch contribution as a view that discredits the standard global warming theory, when in fact Professor Wunsch himself wasn't certain either way. Wunsch closing quotes in the article you directed me to sums it up nicely: "Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.