As you’ve already admitted, this is OT, but anyway: yes, Haber was Jewish. His godson, the historian Fritz Stern, discusses Haber’s feelings about being Jewish at length in an excellent long essay on him and Einstein in Einstein’s German World (Princeton, 1999). I’d strongly recommend it to anyone interested in Haber’s life.
Actually cod illustrate the point I was (badly) trying to make. Atlantic cod are possibly close to extinction level and even if they don’t get wiped out it will take a LONG time for them to re-establish healthy levels.
This is beacuse everybody in the world (actually mainly Spain) just fished and fished with no thought to the management of the fish - so greed and stupidity has effectively ended a resource.
Compare that with the way that the Icelanders have managed their stocks - Icelandic cod is in a fine state and is completely renewable.
Jesus H. If this was actually your point, you shouldn’t start a GQ thread apparently arguing the exact opposite.
AAARGHHH! Why I said I didn’t count animals and plants is that we have a choice about whether we run out or don’t - so it’s not a finite resource. The cod example proves this - On the one hand the french have hoovered them up with no thought to the future - and have “run out” of cod. The Icelanders have thought about this and have a stable and self-replenishing stock of cod. They have a similar scheme for producing kooky female singers.
No matter what those clever Icelanders do, they’ll never have a replenishing coal mine. That’s the difference
Coal … coal… it does ring a bell, but still… coal…
Unreplenisheable resources are so last millenium, man; why burn oil when you can get all that energy from water?
Incidentally, we will be running out of water come 2042, so the government has already started taking our money away to buy more. Makes sense to me.
For the record, coal was actually used here (Iceland) for a while, but only for BBQ-ing in the last 50 years or so.
Coal… :rolleyes:
But nature’s rate of extinction is literally at least 45 times lower for mammals than that of the current mass extinction, and hundreds or thousands of times lower for plants or insects. Natural extinction and anthropocentric extinction are simply not equivalent.
Well, there are likely more unknown species than there are known species, and who’s to say what is “useful”? Humphead wrasse are tasty fish, found in Hong Kong restaurants: near extinction. Bactrian Camels - a useful beast of burden: near extinction. Siberian tigers: near extinction. Is a Siberian tiger ‘useful’?
If you had a point to make, why are we in GQ? Rhetorical questions belong in Great Debates, don’cha think?
Desmostylus: I’m not sure that silphium would have had any unique compounds that aren’t found in some similar plant, such as asafetida, the smaller relative of silphium that the Romans later found in Asia (India, I think it was) and imported. The compounds in silphium are probably the same as in asafetida, but in a different profile, or in a lower concentration.
If we really wanted to, we could probably find some silphium DNA somewhere – in a preserved Roman animal or human body, perhaps. It would then be possible to clone silphium and grow it again, though the need for strong spices is much decreased since the invention of refrigeration, and people today may not enjoy silphium. (Most descriptions seem to indicate that it’s rather like the Southeast Asian durian fruit: awful-smelling, but great-tasting.) As others have pointed out, we couldn’t do the same thing with, say, gold or oil once we run out.
Running out of helium may make it difficult to prepare more, because it’s a noble gas and can’t be easily synthesized. It’s usually found in natural gas, and we appear to be using that as if there’s a limitless supply (converting coal-burning power stations to natural gas, for example) despite the fact that it’s the least plentiful fossil fuel and has applications such as home heating and generating hydrogen for which the other fossil fuels aren’t as well-suited.
Maybe if we looked at geographic resources.
All the land masses in the world are now claimed by someone or some group. They are not all undisputed but are at least claimed.
There is probably a shortage of natural warm water harbors. Places like San Francisco and Sydney are so desireable as ports that they could be largely taken.
By the same token; passes through mountain ranges, navigable straights and mouths of navigable rivers are largely claimed or regulated.
These things have not disappeared so in one sense we have not run out of them. But having them claimed does make them disappear in the same sense that digging all the world’s gold out of the ground means we have run out of gold. The gold still exists but is is owned as personal property instead available for mining as unrefined ore.
There are types of marble that are all gone - Port D’Oro, if I recall, a black marble with gold veins, has all been mined and used in some way.
Whoops, forgot something.
Here are two sculptures made of the stuff.
Cryolite is a mineral used to refine aluminum. As far as I know, it is only mined at one location in Greenland…is it running out?
From waht I understand, the Ivigtut mine has been operating for over 75 years, and the company that operates it has always made a profit.
What, you think the giant panda is going extinct on its own, without a big ole’ helping hand from Homo Sapiens?
The biggest threats to the giant panda as a species are habitat loss and fragmentation (caused by a growing human population) and poaching (done by humans). Cite
No.
But people tend to stop thinking about things that don’t exist.
GQ is for questions with a factual answer, for which the OP qualifies. The poster having a point to make does not necessarily invalidate this.
I agree, we’re wasting something, and we’ll probably regret it later. But it’s still possible to make more, and it’s not even all that difficult: much easier than making new gold or platinum or oil. Helium is just the natural by-product of anything that undergoes alpha decay. An alpha particle is a helium nucleus.
Sorry. 
Well, duh…
My question, “does soil erosion count as a loss of a natural resource” seems a bit, well stupid now. Does it?
Huh?
Sorry about that; washed my ginseng down with too much coffee this morning.