Sand! Is civilization slipping through "It's fingers"?

I first started to read concerning articles about our voracious appetite for this naturally occurring item. I always knew we used a lot of it but wow the increasingly large annual volumes are starting to create havoc. We should be paying closer attention to this issue.

This OP-ED really started a search for more information for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/op...ring.html?_r=0

Then this was an interesting article from last year.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...955669/?no-ist

More recently another OP-ED that things are getting worse not better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/op...ring-sand.html

As you would expect both sides are lining up in this one. Anybody concerned? http://www.rolexforums.com/images/smilies/smokin.gifhttp://www.rolexforums.com/images/smilies/smokin.gifhttp://www.rolexforums.com/images/smilies/smokin.gif

I'm as concerned about sand as I am of climate change. Sorry to be honest, all I care about is my family.

Sand ??? No

Bees ??? Yes

Declining bee populations may lead to significant agricultural losses in U.S. - The Daily Beast


But to be honest nothing really matters when it comes to the destruction of the planet besides to many people

So regardless of the pet problem you want to name from Climate Change to Pesticides it always comes back to the essential core problem

Attachment 242302


To many people

I may worry a little about the conditions future generations may inherit but being of a certain age, as in old, not concerned enough to do anything about it.

Bob

Every time I drive into a major city, I have the same thought...

We need another good plague, or warp drive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

But to be honest nothing really matters when it comes to the destruction of the planet besides to many people
So regardless of the pet problem you want to name from Climate Change to Pesticides it always comes back to the essential core problem

To many people

---

Truer words were never spoken. Changing this would go a long way to reducing many other impending issues alas I hear no one trying to address this one with the exception of previous Chinese one child policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobH

I may worry a little about the conditions future generations may inherit but being of a certain age, as in old, not concerned enough to do anything about it.
Bob

---

As a very good friend of mine is fond of saying "Oh it's a problem....... just not for us".

I usually discount any tree hugging or bunny hugging articles from the NY Times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenngun

I first started to read concerning articles about our voracious appetite for this naturally occurring item. I always knew we used a lot of it but wow the increasingly large annual volumes are starting to create havoc. We should be paying closer attention to this issue.

This OP-ED really started a search for more information for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/op...ring.html?_r=0

Then this was an interesting article from last year.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...955669/?no-ist

More recently another OP-ED that things are getting worse not better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/op...ring-sand.html

As you would expect both sides are lining up in this one. Anybody concerned? http://www.rolexforums.com/images/smilies/smokin.gifhttp://www.rolexforums.com/images/smilies/smokin.gifhttp://www.rolexforums.com/images/smilies/smokin.gif

---

Where I live, as you know I'm sure, we've had our beach recede terribly in past decades, only in the last 20-25 years has some serious effort been made to recapture much of the lost beach area and clean up the water to International Blue Flag status...water now is usually better quality than most of cottage country.

But we'd lost significant portion of the beach in the 70s and 80's...now with the massive effort that was undertaken...it's beauty has been restored.

Great article, "beach nourishment" - great phrase....

I worry more about all the land that the concrete etc. made from much of this sand is covering up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phrank

Where I live, as you know I'm sure, we've had our beach recede terribly in past decades, only in the last 20-25 years has some serious effort been made to recapture much of the lost beach area and clean up the water to International Blue Flag status...water now is usually better quality than most of cottage country.

But we'd lost significant portion of the beach in the 70s and 80's...now with the massive effort that was undertaken...it's beauty has been restored.

Great article, "beach nourishment" - great phrase....

---

A "long" time ago and I can't remember where I read an article about the West cost of the USA.

Basically it stated that the sand naturally traveled from the north to the south along the coast. To trap the sand on their beach people built piers etc. and when they trapped their sand they "starved" the people to the south of them of what naturally came their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

To many people

---

Just another naturally occurring item(s).

There is plenty of sand. Just not where we want it. It's one resource we will never use up. Nature produces more of it through erosion in one year than we use in 100 years or more.

Sand along the coasts migrate. It's depending on climate and currents and ocean dynamics. This has been going on forever and folks have been dealing with it for a very long time.

As an island dweller I am concerned about many things, sand, bees, ocean garbage, fish stocks are all on my mind from time to time. Part of our problem is our meddling. We as humans always want more, and we want it faster, and cheaper. It is all disrupting the balances that nature had originally put in place. We have polluted in ways and in volumes we have not even begun to fathom. We have messed with millions of years of genetics for faster growing and higher yielding crops that will resist the broad spectrum herbicides that would otherwise decrease yields. For that the bee may be the one that pays the price, however in the end, without our helper, we may pay too. We have done a lot of damage for a long time, and there is way too many of us, in centralized locations. We easily have enough food to feed the world, just not where everyone is. By having high expectations that are unsustainable there is an inevitable consequence, that we are yet to discover. If every year we make more than we did the year before, and higher percentages of people have a higher standard of living, and more and more it is an unsustainable curve. We cannot continue and not expect that it is not going to crash.

I will start with I am a beekeeper and so have interest in the issues relating to them but many times I wonder if people realize that the European honey bee is an invasive species that was introduced by man to most of the world?

Apropos ..........;

Expert to Rio athletes: 'Don't put your head under water'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Apropos ..........;

Expert to Rio athletes: 'Don't put your head under water'

---

Got to love the politically correct geniuses at the IOC. I have traveled to Rio many times in my life. You want party, thats your place, no doubt about it. God knows how much fun I had. For the Olympics? Not a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezDog

As an island dweller I am concerned about many things, sand, bees, ocean garbage, fish stocks are all on my mind from time to time. Part of our problem is out meddling. We as humans always want more, and we want it faster, and cheaper. It is all disrupting the balances that nature had originally put in place. We have polluted in ways and in volumes we have not even begun to fathom. We have messed with millions of years of genetics for faster growing and higher yielding crops that will resist the broad spectrum herbicides that would otherwise decrease yields. For that the bee may be the one that pays the price, however in the end, without our helper, we may pay too. We have done a lot of damage for a long time, and there is way too many of us, in centralized locations. We easily have enough food to feed the world, just not where everyone is. By having high expectations that are unsustainable there is an inevitable consequence, that we are yet to discover. If every year we make more than we did the year before, and higher percentages of people have a higher standard of living, and more and more it is an unsustainable curve. We cannot continue and not expect that it is not going to crash.

---

Pretty much, well put.

Bob

I don't know how many of you have cultured bacteria in a shaker flask, but they have a standard growth curve that I often think of when considering our planet's population growth. This curve always happens when you have exponential growth with finite resources; and no matter your leanings politically or scientifically, the resources on this planet ARE finite.

Attachment 242317

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

I don't know how many of you have cultured bacteria in a shaker flask, but they have a standard growth curve that I often think of when considering our planet's population growth. This curve always happens when you have exponential growth with finite resources; and no matter your leanings politically or scientifically, the resources on this planet ARE finite.

---

So you're saying there are only so many coticules and J-nats ?

I have always wondered about these doom and gloom stories and how the oceans have risen hundreds of feet, we are all going to die. Then I look at this and think - if the oceans have risen as much as they say - why isn't the end of the great wall of China - that was built in to the sea - under water?

Attachment 242318

There are lots of things we need to address but no one ever cares or thinks they can do anything about it so everyone just thinks ah lets let the next generation deal with it.

My outlook on climate control an the ozone is if I shoot you with a gun you have a hole in you so the rockets shooting into space are what is putting huge holes in the ozone not the little things going on down here.

I also completely agree that it has to do with too many people. I don't know how many arguments I've gotten into because I think that bad things happening to large groups of people is population control. For example I said that 911 an Katrina were both population control it doesn't mean I don't feel bad about it or that it's not tragic I just understand that the we need major thing like this to happen to keep over population under control. They're all bad things but they are a necessity just like animals eating animals in the jungle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

So you're saying there are only so many coticules and J-nats ?

---

Yes, Jimmy, and that is why my old coticule photo you like so much is way out of date!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

Yes, Jimmy, and that is why my old coticule photo you like so much is way out of date!

---

For those who weren't around back then ........

Attachment 242336

I think it is funny that you can produce that photo much faster than I can. The pile would be a lot bigger now, to a point that I would not want to risk piling them. It helps a little that about a dozen are out on loan!

I just can't let go of a coticule!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

This curve always happens when you have exponential growth with finite resources; and no matter your leanings politically or scientifically, the resources on this planet ARE finite.

---

The question though is what is the timescale. The resources are finite but there is also 'the circle of life'.
The primary non-renewable resource on this planet is energy and the sun won't burn out for another 5 billion years which is about how long since this planet was formed. On that time scale life as we know it is just a spec and Elon Musk is spending all his money to spread it out of the Earth.

It seems to me that people care about themselves, to a lesser degree about their children, less about grandchildren and almost not at all three generations beyond. So, things that happen on their life's timescale they see as very important (problems with bees), things that happen on timescale that'd affect their children and grandchildren they see as may be important (climate change) and anything else is pretty much unimportant.

Baring a catastrophic event people will adapt to however the environment changes.

Population growth doesn't seem to be an issue - most countries have lower and much lower population density than the Netherlands and the Netherlands can probably support even double its population right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

I think it is funny that you can produce that photo much faster than I can. The pile would be a lot bigger now, to a point that I would not want to risk piling them. It helps a little that about a dozen are out on loan!

I just can't let go of a coticule!

---

Randydance would have stacked his coticules but he would to have had to erect scaffolding and hire a crane with 100 foot of stick ........... :p

Hmmm. I find it intriguing that the Netherlands can support that much life. It is a very small area, but unlike countries like Canada, the majority of it is habitable. Due to it's small area that would have to be some pretty well managed food and water production and waste management. Energy I do not see as part of our limitations, clean water on the other hand, unmodified foods resources, those things I see as quite limited. I do believe that the earth shakings herself in a great cleanse, is becoming more and more likely, in part due to the lack of little shakes. We have made vast areas of the earth uninhabitable over the centuries. We have adapted our environment more than we have adapted, and in doing so created part of the "hole" we find ourselves looking out of. Alternating wild fires and floods, within the same region and environmental anomalies and bizarre weather conditions are actually becoming rather common. I hate to sound like a dooms-day-ist but there is mounting evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezDog

Energy I do not see as part of our limitations, clean water on the other hand, unmodified foods resources, those things I see as quite limited.

---

The only difference between dirty and clean water is the energy that it takes to clean it - there is no technological barrier.
USA and Canada waste obscene amounts of food, which means that there are more than enough resources and bandwidth in the current way of production.

I am drinking Chablis tonight, which is only possible because when phylloxera threatened the extinction of chardonnay in that region people grafted it on labrusca rootstock from america and it was fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

The question though is what is the timescale. The resources are finite but there is also 'the circle of life'.
The primary non-renewable resource on this planet is energy and the sun won't burn out for another 5 billion years which is about how long since this planet was formed. On that time scale life as we know it is just a spec and Elon Musk is spending all his money to spread it out of the Earth.

It seems to me that people care about themselves, to a lesser degree about their children, less about grandchildren and almost not at all three generations beyond. So, things that happen on their life's timescale they see as very important (problems with bees), things that happen on timescale that'd affect their children and grandchildren they see as may be important (climate change) and anything else is pretty much unimportant.

Baring a catastrophic event people will adapt to however the environment changes.

Population growth doesn't seem to be an issue - most countries have lower and much lower population density than the Netherlands and the Netherlands can probably support even double its population right now.

---

Actually, because of solar energy, I consider energy to be one of the few renewable resources. Out of necessity, we will eventually figure out the more efficient ways for making use of that solar energy. Sadly though, it is a matter of how long it will take to accomplish that and whether or not we will stop using the old sequestered solar energy buried deep underground in the form of coal, oil, and gas--all of which are bound with massive amounts of CO2.

I consider water to be the primary non-renewable resource. Even if we do come up with more economical ways to de-salinate the oceans, its transport far from the coasts is still a massive issue.

Yes, we will adapt. Some how, some way, we probably will survive. It's just a matter of how hard we make it.

Like climate change, the population issue is a global problem. Even if particular areas are unaffected, the total population of the planet is growing exponentially and out of control.

We have put a lot of stuff into the water that does not treat out. There is a ton of chemicals, and a lot of those we consume as pharmaceuticals, that are pretty much there to stay. Over time those will only get worse. Our food resources are another example of us meddling. We farm livestock that is quite poorly suited to the terrain and have all but eliminated the animals that once roamed in abundance. Our crops are currently more chemistry experiments than anything else. Those keep getting to be more and more modified and more and more people are having difficulty consuming them. Perhaps that is how we will adapt, only those that are able to live on our chemistry experiments will survive. You are correct in that food is not the problem, distribution is the issue. I think that is true with some of the population as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I am drinking Chablis tonight,

---

That explains a lot. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

I consider water to be the primary non-renewable resource. Even if we do come up with more economical ways to de-salinate the oceans, its transport far from the coasts is still a massive issue.

---

See, it's just a matter of cost not one of irreversibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

Like climate change, the population issue is a global problem. Even if particular areas are unaffected, the total population of the planet is growing exponentially and out of control.

---

But this is not true - there is a clear negative feedback loop and control. When a population exceeds the available resources it starts declining by any number of pathways. So far it's been increasing because there are more than enough resources, and even if a particular area lacks them others with abundance have been providing them.
Not only this, but we've had population growth and increase of the standard of living of the population, and still have a lot of leftovers. Is this because we're utilizing the energy stored over hundreds of millions of years in fossil fuels - it is possible, though I don't know one way or another. But this doesn't mean that with a better technology the immense amount of solar energy that is now wasted couldn't be utilized and provide support for even further growth.

The point is that this is a matter of numbers and how they work out, not of some fundamental restrictions from lack of renewable resources. All life is synthesis of mostly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and tiny bits of other stuff all is completely renewable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezDog

There is a ton of chemicals, and a lot of those we consume as pharmaceuticals, that are pretty much there to stay.

---

They most certainly do not have to. The only reason they are left to stay is cost - if people want to they can take them out completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezDog

Our food resources are another example of us meddling. We farm livestock that is quite poorly suited to the terrain and have all but eliminated the animals that once roamed in abundance.

---

Again, it's different technology for food production at much lower cost. At some point the negatives that are externalized costs may catch up and the present technology can change, but there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with it. People live longer, healthier and more idle lives than under the older technologies, so it's not like there is something gone terribly wrong.

Indeed the present way of mass food production does require a whole other level of distribution not only of the food, but also the soil minerals. In the old circle of life the crops deplete nitrogen and phosphorus from the soil then the animals concentrate those and return them back as manure pretty much in the original location. Nowadays when you grow the corn in 'Iowa' and the cattle in 'Nebraska' you also move the N and Ph from the former to the later. So far the easy solution has been to just worry about replenishing them in 'Iowa' the cheapest way possible. Which is to extract more of them from the ancient stores in fossil fuels.

Well to be fair, technically we do have the ability to remove them, however there are currently around 85 chemicals that are in most municipal water, because the cost of removal is exceptionally high, it would make clean water cost as much as some precious metals.
The eco systems of the planet are a delicate balance. Most things in nature are connected, even if we don;t see the connection easily. For an example the elimination of the sea otter on most of the west coast can be seen in the growth rings in the old growth forest. So the disappearance of frogs, the plight of the bees, the loss of the sands, the garbage in the oceans, and the contaminants in the water, and the melting of the polar ice caps are all related. They are all signs that we have no clue what we are doing. We can discount the science, we can vent even deeper and more far reaching science to try to compensate for the last science experiment when we thought we were making food better by putting star fish DNA into wheat. In the end part of the problem is our meddling.

The Earth has been here for billions of years before any life existed here. The earth doesn't care what we do because the surface we live on is basically like the crumbs on your dinner table. It could all be obliterated tomorrow and the Earth will still go on like it did before.

Everything is ultimately recycled. Nothing is wasted. You know, all that great topsoil we have in the American Heartland wasn't derived here it was originally in Canada. The last ice Age moved it all south leaving the Canadian Shield a barren pothole filled landscape of small lakes. The Earth's surface is constantly undergoing change.

As far as we are concerned technology has always come in the nick of time to save us. Whether that will always happen I don't know. I suspect one of these days something will happen and our number will be up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezDog

The eco systems of the planet are a delicate balance. Most things in nature are connected, even if we don;t see the connection easily.

---

Nature is pretty violent place and the 'dynamic equilibrium' is constantly changing. It's a matter of adaptability - every species is constantly evolving and sometimes they go extinct.
We have managed a pretty decent and stable life that no other species on the planet enjoys. Most of the time, though, we have externalized the costs - if it's something that doesn't have an immediate negative effect we don't care about it. With time we've started to look beyond 'immediate effect' and have figured out that if we want to keep our nice life we have to start worrying about the medium-term and long-term effects too. But that's only because we have the luxury of doing so.

For example, since water keeps being brought up, I read at one time that if americans give up eating meat one day a week they will save more water than flows in the Colorado river. And given the typical american diet they'll even improve their health in the process. But it generally isn't going to happen because most americans put the immediate pleasure from eating obscene amounts of meat before the medium and long term negative effects.

There is always a resistance to start covering costs that have previously been externalized, but sustainability requires that we do more and more of that. Otherwise the negatives accumulate and eventually we have to deal with a far bigger problem (or some other generation does, which is why most people don't really care).

As far as science goes, I am personally very much in favor of mixing all kinds of genes. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, even 100% synthetic genome is perfectly fine with me. There will no doubt be bad things but there will be good things too. The life on earth didn't come to this place by being encapsulated and isolated in a some shielded pod - it happened through hundreds of millions of years of extremely violent trials and errors. Making crazy stuff in a lab doesn't seem really crazy to me. There is the risk of something going very wrong and wiping us out but we already have plenty of such things like nuclear weapons and living 'as part of nature' without science is quite risky as well.

I still buy organic and local groceries (they tend to taste better and be more nutritious), but I also buy stuff that doesn't grow here or isn't growing here at the time I buy it. I don't need to buy yellow rice since I eat carrots, but if I lived in a place and had income that I couldn't get the necessary vitamin A, I'd be foolish to reject it on the basis of being genetically modified.

Well evolution takes time and is a natural adaptation, it does not mix DNA of plants and animals that does not live in the same area. The labs are increases crop yields, but not in order to feed more people or to increase the food value of our food. It's all about more $ per acre. They don't care about what the long term effects of those plants and those chemicals are on our planet. They are simply making money, and we the inhabitants and the earth will pay in the end. In developed countries obesity is rising at very rapid rates. Mostly amongst the city dwellers. Not just because of how much we eat but the crap that is pumped into it. In order to get mote meat to market, faster and at lower prices, we developed feed lots. That is where they take thousands of cattle, stand them side by side and stuff them full of steroids and antibiotics and anti psychotics, and a few other drugs to the point where a % of them die because of too many drugs. It is not about how many more people they can feed, it's about making more money. Yes we can save water by not eating beef one day a week, we can also save water by changing our clothes less often and not washing our cars twice a week. There is a lot going wrong and normally I would say you can do what you want and I will live the way I want, except, your science experiments are killing my bees, and my frogs, and keep washing up on my beaches. AS you contaminate your environment you are also contaminating mine. We have to agree to change things or regardless of my choices yours will kill us all. Evolution does not take place in a petri dish. We live longer but many with such a diminished quality that what is the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezDog

Well evolution takes time and is a natural adaptation, it does not mix DNA of plants and animals that does not live in the same area.

---

Well, it creates random mutations, which survive based their advantage/disadvantage for the species. I still don't see why this extremely slow and low-tech process ought to be exclusive. As far as I can tell there is nothing in the evolutionary process prevent wheat to evolve the starfish gene given sufficient time, since that was the example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezDog

AS you contaminate your environment you are also contaminating mine. We have to agree to change things or regardless of my choices yours will kill us all.

---

Well, people are selfish, and it's not easy to make them agree to cover costs that they didn't have to cover. When environmental contamination costs something to the contaminators they will start doing less of it. Just like if water is priced correctly people will stop wasting it. Or if there are health costs that come from modern food production when those costs are priced back in the food production it will quickly change by the market forces.
As I keep saying the issue is the externalization of costs - if you fix that the market is just as efficient and ruthless as the evolutionary process and will take care of the rest. The only special thing that we need to deal with is setting a minimal level of resources that a person gets just because they are human - without that the disparities that the natural selection creates are going to cause some very unpalatable situations; I don't think we are willing to allow the appropriate level of empathy and ethics be subject of market optimization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The Earth has been here for billions of years before any life existed here. The earth doesn't care what we do because the surface we live on is basically like the crumbs on your dinner table. It could all be obliterated tomorrow and the Earth will still go on like it did before.

Everything is ultimately recycled. Nothing is wasted. You know, all that great topsoil we have in the American Heartland wasn't derived here it was originally in Canada. The last ice Age moved it all south leaving the Canadian Shield a barren pothole filled landscape of small lakes. The Earth's surface is constantly undergoing change.

As far as we are concerned technology has always come in the nick of time to save us. Whether that will always happen I don't know. I suspect one of these days something will happen and our number will be up.

---

Exactly! And this is why I said, all I care for is my family, that's the only thing in my life that I can cherish, everything else, I have zero control over.

The question is, when the time is up, can you say you lived a good life, full of happiness? I know I can and that's all that matters to me.

Solar Power


Solar roadway panels to go on display in Idaho city | KBOI