Thursday, March 03, 2011

What others are doing

Jason offers a pastoral reflection upon the Christchurch earthquake.

Kate summarises why climate change is bad for biodiversity, otherwise known as the web of life (though as a couple of comments point out, we're really talking about anthropogenic environmental change, not just climate change, as there are other factors contributing to the current precipitous biodiversity decline).

Jeremy is in search of the biodegradable shoe. He also thinks there are three basic paths ahead for the world over this century.

Bill discusses what he thinks might be the most popular tax in history.

David distinguishes (very helpfully) between stuff and things, and while he's dishing out useful advice, he also gives some tips on how to make trillions of dollars.

Halden is a little underwhelmed by ecumenism.

And Brad relates a tale of two Protestantisms, in which O'Donovan sides with the Augustinian English Anglicans against the Donatist Scots Presbyterians (perhaps unsurprisingly, since O'Donovan is an English Anglican who happens to live in Scotland). If nothing after that last comma made sense, don't worry, the post itself is very readable.


byron smith said...

SMH: Dinosaur-like extinction on the cards.

byron smith said...

For some reason, that article seems cut short (mid-paragraph). Here is the full piece.

BTW, I don't really rate Ehrlich, who gets population growth and consumption habits back to front.

byron smith said...

And yes, the vast majority of species we are going to lose are not charismatic megafauna. But even the most charismatic of all megafauna are not immune.

byron smith said...

And another big cat bites the dust. Or rather, probably did so in the 1930s, thus illustrating just how difficult it is to prove a negative and why actual extinctions will always far exceed official extinctions.

John said...

Byron, just in case Craig Schwarz doesn't allow my comment to be put up, I wrote:

No, Byron, the real reason you don't "believe" (whatever that means in this context) in creation science is because you've never examined the science and the theology behind it. For someone with a degree in philosophy from USyd that's, as Larry David would say, pretty, pretty, pretty bad.

byron smith said...

Ah, John, if you're going to make unfounded accusations then I'm afraid it might not just be Craig who moderates your comments. Please keep your ESP under control. Thanks!

stef said...

A lovely photo from a great holiday.