Talk:Ecoregion - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Sorry. I agree with House Elf -> I agree with 142.177.X.X

2003-05-10T15:09:55Z

Sorry. I agree with House Elf -> I agree with 142.177.X.X

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 10 May 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.		:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.
	::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.		::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.
	:::I agree with ~~house elf (~~142) on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]],		:::I agree with 142.177.X.X on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]],

	::::by sticking with [[ecology risk]] first we avoid certain complexities like		::::by sticking with [[ecology risk]] first we avoid certain complexities like

142.177.99.5 at 02:33, 10 May 2003

2003-05-10T02:33:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 10 May 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.		:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.
	::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.		::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.
	:::I agree with house elf (142) on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like some [[textile]] heavy free zones in middle america (fevelas?)		:::I agree with house elf (142) on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]],

			::::by sticking with [[ecology risk]] first we avoid certain complexities like

			::though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like some [[textile]] heavy free zones in middle america (fevelas?)
			::::yes, it is more than national, one must go down to the actual [[producer]] - in [[China]] they actually put the maker of every textile item on everything so you can personally find out if they are doing things you don't like, and to ensure buyers they are not buying [[prison labour]].
	:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue. [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST)		:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue. [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST)
			:::: I am sure either a [[User:House_Elf\|House Elf]] or [[friendly troll]] will do so. But do not confuse them, as a troll however friendly may still [[bite ou on the leg]] for blaming a House Elf for his trollish behaviour!

			:::: If you are a very good sysop you may see other users arrive as well. You have already got [[User:Procrustes\|Procrustes]] and [[friendly troll]], both of whom are [[Honoured Immoral]]s. Eventually another some such may appear to work on your [[glossary]]. But trolls are still trolls. Beware!

House Elf at 19:33, 9 May 2003

2003-05-09T19:33:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 9 May 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	:I have a problem with the definition given by WWF, as it add to this one "with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change". I think this approach tends to consider that these areas were static (which is only true on a very small time scale) and the preanthropic areas were the "right" ones (when thinking in terms of biodiversity conservation). Besides, on some continents, it is likely major land-use change occured quite a long time ago. I think they focus too much on what would have been expected to be found given local conditions, "if" human had had no impact whatsoever.<br>		:I have a problem with the definition given by WWF, as it add to this one "with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change". I think this approach tends to consider that these areas were static (which is only true on a very small time scale) and the preanthropic areas were the "right" ones (when thinking in terms of biodiversity conservation). Besides, on some continents, it is likely major land-use change occured quite a long time ago. I think they focus too much on what would have been expected to be found given local conditions, "if" human had had no impact whatsoever.<br>
	:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.		:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.
	::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.		::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.
	:::I agree with house elf on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like some [[textile]] heavy free zones in middle america (fevelas?)		:::I agree with house elf (142) on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like some [[textile]] heavy free zones in middle america (fevelas?)
	:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue. [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST)		:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue. [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST)

Jukeboksi: fix typo

2003-05-09T15:53:16Z

fix typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 9 May 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.		:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.
	::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.		::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.
	:::I agree with house elf on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like.		:::I agree with house elf on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like some [[textile]] heavy free zones in middle america (fevelas?)
	:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue. [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST)		:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue. [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST)

Jukeboksi: +signature

2003-05-09T15:52:15Z

+signature

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 9 May 2003
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.		::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.
	:::I agree with house elf on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like.		:::I agree with house elf on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like.
	:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue.		:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue. [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:52 May 9, 2003 (EEST)

Jukeboksi: agree with House Elf on most points.

2003-05-09T15:51:57Z

agree with House Elf on most points.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 9 May 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.		:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.
	::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.		::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.
			:::I agree with house elf on the separation of area of denomination for [[social risk]] and [[ecology risk]], though some further distinctions must be made to assess [[social risk]] eg. [[free zone]]s (zones with special [[tax]] and [[labor law]] exemptions like.
			:::Further solid [[waste]] and [[emission]]s (aerosolised or liquid pollution) must be treated as different cases since emissions don't follow national or other borders, but are a [[global]] issue. I have no expertese in this area, so I'm hoping someone else will look into this [[waste]] and [[emission]] [[assesment]] issue.

House Elf at 14:27, 9 May 2003

2003-05-09T14:27:08Z

New page

:I have a problem with the definition given by WWF, as it add to this one "with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change". I think this approach tends to consider that these areas were static (which is only true on a very small time scale) and the preanthropic areas were the "right" ones (when thinking in terms of biodiversity conservation). Besides, on some continents, it is likely major land-use change occured quite a long time ago. I think they focus too much on what would have been expected to be found given local conditions, "if" human had had no impact whatsoever.<br>
:This is not dreamland, this is consumerium. I question defining ecoregion more as a potentiality than a reality. Both are important, but if ecoregions are defined with that limitation in mind, trade issues, borders issues, will perhaps not be addressed very well.
::I think there must be strong [[visions]] of what this can do, so I support using ecoregions and whole-planet systems ([[atmosphere]], [[climate]]) being as the basis of all [[ecology risk]] information, while [[country]], [[trade]], [[border]] questions must be how you deal with [[social risk]]. There's really no other way.