A major part of global warming just destruction of the planet is caused by eating meat. There is a great documentary named cowspiricy on netflix. Yeah this is the type of bs you can expect from trumps team in a effort to make AmerKKKa great I mean white again.
It does not come from eating meat, it comes from our overproduction of cows pigs and chickens.
@JangoWuzHere: For a number of reasons, what if, something happens to Earth in the next few centuries? Don't you wanna see Humanity colonizing other worlds? Yes the technology isn't advance yet to do so, but do you wanna see Humanity reaching for the stars in the distance future?
I'm not sure how putting people on mars is supposed to help that.
All the research and data we can collect on potentially colonizing other worlds can be accomplished by sending drones and rovers. We don't need actual boots on the ground for that.
The suggestion is colonizing, not studying and the reality is the faster we get "boots on the ground", the faster we colonize. Which is something we will need to do as humans tend to want to populate far beyond what their worlds can handle. Our problems mostly stem from an extremely overpopulated world, an earth that can handle roughly 1/3rd of what our population is.
A major part of global warming just destruction of the planet is caused by eating meat. There is a great documentary named cowspiricy on netflix. Yeah this is the type of bs you can expect from trumps team in a effort to make AmerKKKa great I mean white again.
It does not come from eating meat, it comes from our overproduction of cows pigs and chickens.
true but if people went vegan there would be no reason to have so man animals.
true but if people went vegan there would be no reason to have so man animals.
No, worldwide veganism would simply bring another problem to the table... because again...the problem is not that people eat meat or even eat farm produced animals, its the way the farming industry is ran and the vast overproduction to push people in countries to eat more meat than they should by making it extremely cheap and easily available.
Its the irresponsibility of business, which would still take place if everyone was a vegan and im sure, just with every industry, serious problems would arise.
So basically Trump is going to remove funding from NASA's programs researching climate change because his party's ideology differs from the evidence on the matter. Between this and placing a climate change skeptic as the head of the EPA I'd say his actions on the matter speaks volumes and it doesn't bode well for humanity.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/08/110811-turning-carbon-emissions-into-fuel/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/
Someone's junk, someone's fortune.
The money for climate change research should be re-allocated into technology that can earn $$$$$ while solving the excess carbon problem.
@MrGeezer: "saving the planet should be a total non-issue"?
Our survival as a species lays contingent on addressing the means of sustainability that enables it. Namely....our planet. Perhaps "save" is overly hyperbolic, but we can't discuss taking care of ourselves without taking the Earth's situation into account at the same time. Saving ourselves and saving Earth (meaning retaining sustainable conditions) are synonymous. Call it hippy bullshit if you like, but we are tied to this planet and depend on it.
Again, that's got nothing to do with saving the planet, that's entirely about saving ourselves.
.....which is tied into saving (again, a hyperbolic term) the planet. You can't separate one from the other.
Generally allowing living things to live is considered good by just about any ethical system. And frankly there is always an element of self interest in everything we do.....that does not mean we aren't acting for altruistic motives though. I might give you a hand moving because you need a hand moving but at the core it makes people feel good to help as well. It is NOT a negative to do good things even if you achieve some happiness from it.
Do we want to keep them around? I can't stand insects in any form but I'd allow that we shouldn't destroy their lives because of it. That may benefit some species but not all. And in the end the destruction can benefit more than harm.
Again most species have adapted. Or do you not allow for evolution?
Ethical system? What relevance does an ethical system have outside of a human context? Nature doesn't operate on ethics, nature operates on cause and effect. And who said anything about doing "good" being a negative thing?
You say that you can't stand insects, but I think you realize that you would like a world without insects a whole lot less. They're the basis of the food chain.
And I don't think you understand how evolution works. Extinction doesn't require that the species in question is an evolutionary dead end, otherwise we'd be saying that dinosaurs aren't extinct. It doesn't work like that. Modern birds may be the distant descendants of certain dinosaurs, but the dinosaurs still died out. They didn't just morph into birds, they died out. Otherwise we'd have dinosaurs AND birds living today. It is absolutely true that nearly every species that has ever lived has gone extinct.
Where did you get that idea? We build walls to guard against floods. We fortify for hurricanes and evacuate prior to them.
We attempt to mitigate loss of life and economic damage because it leaves victims in it's wake. That includes preventing such losses from both natural and man made causes.
We build walls to protect OURSELVES from floods. We evacuate CITIES prior to the arrival of hurricanes, we don't evacuate the wild animals from the forests. They're on their own. Again, self-interest.
.....which is tied into saving (again, a hyperbolic term) the planet. You can't separate one from the other.
The GOAL, however, is not to save the planet. It's like if my plane goes down over the ocean and my sick grandmother is with me, I'm going to try to save my grandmother's heart medication. Why? Because she needs it. However, if my grandmother happened to die during the crash, then there's not much reason going for her heart medicine is there?
Generally allowing living things to live is considered good by just about any ethical system. And frankly there is always an element of self interest in everything we do.....that does not mean we aren't acting for altruistic motives though. I might give you a hand moving because you need a hand moving but at the core it makes people feel good to help as well. It is NOT a negative to do good things even if you achieve some happiness from it.
Do we want to keep them around? I can't stand insects in any form but I'd allow that we shouldn't destroy their lives because of it. That may benefit some species but not all. And in the end the destruction can benefit more than harm.
Again most species have adapted. Or do you not allow for evolution?
Ethical system? What relevance does an ethical system have outside of a human context? Nature doesn't operate on ethics, nature operates on cause and effect. And who said anything about doing "good" being a negative thing?
You say that you can't stand insects, but I think you realize that you would like a world without insects a whole lot less. They're the basis of the food chain.
And I don't think you understand how evolution works. Extinction doesn't require that the species in question is an evolutionary dead end, otherwise we'd be saying that dinosaurs aren't extinct. It doesn't work like that. Modern birds may be the distant descendants of certain dinosaurs, but the dinosaurs still died out. They didn't just morph into birds, they died out. Otherwise we'd have dinosaurs AND birds living today. It is absolutely true that nearly every species that has ever lived has gone extinct.
I don't know what ethical has to do with this but you brought up the idea of good. Which would be an ethical judgment.
No I'd like a world without insects just fine. They are the basis of the food chain for some animals. Not all. So if one were selfish they'd be willing to let that part of the food chain die.
Not necessarily no. The dinosaurs that didn't become extinct were adapted into new animals. We have elephants and the cat family for instance which have descendants that did die out. I understand it just fine. I said they adapted.
Generally allowing living things to live is considered good by just about any ethical system. And frankly there is always an element of self interest in everything we do.....that does not mean we aren't acting for altruistic motives though. I might give you a hand moving because you need a hand moving but at the core it makes people feel good to help as well. It is NOT a negative to do good things even if you achieve some happiness from it.
Do we want to keep them around? I can't stand insects in any form but I'd allow that we shouldn't destroy their lives because of it. That may benefit some species but not all. And in the end the destruction can benefit more than harm.
Again most species have adapted. Or do you not allow for evolution?
Ethical system? What relevance does an ethical system have outside of a human context? Nature doesn't operate on ethics, nature operates on cause and effect. And who said anything about doing "good" being a negative thing?
You say that you can't stand insects, but I think you realize that you would like a world without insects a whole lot less. They're the basis of the food chain.
And I don't think you understand how evolution works. Extinction doesn't require that the species in question is an evolutionary dead end, otherwise we'd be saying that dinosaurs aren't extinct. It doesn't work like that. Modern birds may be the distant descendants of certain dinosaurs, but the dinosaurs still died out. They didn't just morph into birds, they died out. Otherwise we'd have dinosaurs AND birds living today. It is absolutely true that nearly every species that has ever lived has gone extinct.
Where did you get that idea? We build walls to guard against floods. We fortify for hurricanes and evacuate prior to them.
We attempt to mitigate loss of life and economic damage because it leaves victims in it's wake. That includes preventing such losses from both natural and man made causes.
We build walls to protect OURSELVES from floods. We evacuate CITIES prior to the arrival of hurricanes, we don't evacuate the wild animals from the forests. They're on their own. Again, self-interest.
Plenty of species, especially social species have developed some form of ethics and morals. Morality evolved through natural selection as well. With amoral populations not able to thrive and coexist, as well as those populations who could coexist.
The physical world doesnt, but a lot of non homo sapiens have some form of morality. But I digress.
Save the planet is hyperbolic but it has a point. While we are essentially protecting ourselves from ourselves. Saving other animals may come into it too for some. As climate change would make earth uninhabitable not only for humans, but other species as well. In the end it comes down to utilitarianism, where there is arguably a utilitarian net-loss for sentient organisms.
Generally allowing living things to live is considered good by just about any ethical system. And frankly there is always an element of self interest in everything we do.....that does not mean we aren't acting for altruistic motives though. I might give you a hand moving because you need a hand moving but at the core it makes people feel good to help as well. It is NOT a negative to do good things even if you achieve some happiness from it.
Do we want to keep them around? I can't stand insects in any form but I'd allow that we shouldn't destroy their lives because of it. That may benefit some species but not all. And in the end the destruction can benefit more than harm.
Again most species have adapted. Or do you not allow for evolution?
Ethical system? What relevance does an ethical system have outside of a human context? Nature doesn't operate on ethics, nature operates on cause and effect. And who said anything about doing "good" being a negative thing?
You say that you can't stand insects, but I think you realize that you would like a world without insects a whole lot less. They're the basis of the food chain.
And I don't think you understand how evolution works. Extinction doesn't require that the species in question is an evolutionary dead end, otherwise we'd be saying that dinosaurs aren't extinct. It doesn't work like that. Modern birds may be the distant descendants of certain dinosaurs, but the dinosaurs still died out. They didn't just morph into birds, they died out. Otherwise we'd have dinosaurs AND birds living today. It is absolutely true that nearly every species that has ever lived has gone extinct.
I don't know what ethical has to do with this but you brought up the idea of good. Which would be an ethical judgment.
No I'd like a world without insects just fine. They are the basis of the food chain for some animals. Not all. So if one were selfish they'd be willing to let that part of the food chain die.
Not necessarily no. The dinosaurs that didn't become extinct were adapted into new animals. We have elephants and the cat family for instance which have descendants that did die out. I understand it just fine. I said they adapted.
No, I most certainly didn't bring up the idea of good. I'm not the one who's proposing that it's "better" for species to live or the environment to be preserved (outside of the obvious benefit to humanity, and how that relates to self-preservation). The notion that the world as it is now would be "better" than the world as it would be if many species went extinct is the basis of trying "save" species. If it wasn't "better" then we wouldn't try to "save" them.
And no, you WOULDN'T like a world without insects. You say you would, but that's because you don't understand how important insects are to humanity's well-being.
And no, you don't understand it. One species of animal cannot turn into a different species of animal. There are no dinosaurs that didn't become extinct because dinosaurs no longer exist. A species cannot "turn into" a completely different species any more than I can turn into my daughter. What happens is that a species gives rise to a different species and then the ancestral species goes extinct (or coexists as a completely different species). But nothing turned into something else. You've got an ancestor and a descendant. Dinosaurs did not turn into birds, dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, and went extinct. A parent cannot turn into its own offspring.
Plenty of species, especially social species have developed some form of ethics and morals. Morality evolved through natural selection as well. With amoral populations not able to thrive and coexist, as well as those populations who could coexist.
The physical world doesnt, but a lot of non homo sapiens have some form of morality. But I digress.
Save the planet is hyperbolic but it has a point. While we are essentially protecting ourselves from ourselves. Saving other animals may come into it too for some. As climate change would make earth uninhabitable not only for humans, but other species as well. In the end it comes down to utilitarianism, where there is arguably a utilitarian net-loss for sentient organisms.
And if those other species with a form of ethics deem it proper to manipulate the environment in order to ensure their OWN survival, no one is arguing that. What I am arguing is the arrogance of one species projecting its morals and ethics onto a completely different species. You wouldn't like a hyper-advanced species of alien coming down here and dictating what we are and are not allowed to do simply because our morals and ethics are different than theirs. By that same token, your wouldn't go out into the woods and see a cute baby bird being gruesomely killed by ants in a horrifically painful manner and then decide that the bird's desire to not feel pain outweighs the ants' desire to feed themselves. This is precisely why documentarians and researchers aren't supposed to pick a side and favor one kind of animal over another. That's projecting human bias and morality onto nature and determining that one species' needs take priority over the others'. And that's f***ed up.
Where did you get that idea? We build walls to guard against floods. We fortify for hurricanes and evacuate prior to them.
We attempt to mitigate loss of life and economic damage because it leaves victims in it's wake. That includes preventing such losses from both natural and man made causes.
We build walls to protect OURSELVES from floods. We evacuate CITIES prior to the arrival of hurricanes, we don't evacuate the wild animals from the forests. They're on their own. Again, self-interest.
That's what I just said. We avoid and mitigate both to deter loss of life and economic impact/victims.
@JangoWuzHere: For a number of reasons, what if, something happens to Earth in the next few centuries? Don't you wanna see Humanity colonizing other worlds? Yes the technology isn't advance yet to do so, but do you wanna see Humanity reaching for the stars in the distance future?
I'm not sure how putting people on mars is supposed to help that.
All the research and data we can collect on potentially colonizing other worlds can be accomplished by sending drones and rovers. We don't need actual boots on the ground for that.
At some point you are going to need a human being to step foot on one of those planets. Robots can only do so much and if worst case scenario happens where the Earth can no longer be habitable wouldn't you want to know that we have years of actual human experience on another rocky planet than just all of a sudden at a whim having to send millions not knowing exactly what might happen? You can take all the measurements you want from a billions of miles away, however at some point we will have to leave this planet and doing it with experience is a hell of a lot better than none at all.
A major part of global warming just destruction of the planet is caused by eating meat. There is a great documentary named cowspiricy on netflix. Yeah this is the type of bs you can expect from trumps team in a effort to make AmerKKKa great I mean white again.
It does not come from eating meat, it comes from our overproduction of cows pigs and chickens.
Hence, from our love to eat meat. If we didn't love to eat meat as much as we do, overproduction of cows, pigs, and chickens wouldn't happen.
@JangoWuzHere: For a number of reasons, what if, something happens to Earth in the next few centuries? Don't you wanna see Humanity colonizing other worlds? Yes the technology isn't advance yet to do so, but do you wanna see Humanity reaching for the stars in the distance future?
I'm not sure how putting people on mars is supposed to help that.
All the research and data we can collect on potentially colonizing other worlds can be accomplished by sending drones and rovers. We don't need actual boots on the ground for that.
At some point you are going to need a human being to step foot on one of those planets. Robots can only do so much and if worst case scenario happens where the Earth can no longer be habitable wouldn't you want to know that we have years of actual human experience on another rocky planet than just all of a sudden at a whim having to send millions not knowing exactly what might happen? You can take all the measurements you want from a billions of miles away, however at some point we will have to leave this planet and doing it with experience is a hell of a lot better than none at all.
They're already plans to establish colonies on mars by the 2030s. It's apparent we need actual people those planets, but we don't need them to go do research. The process of sending them there and back is far more expensive and wasteful.
There are many reasons not to send actual people to Mars. Number 1 is that it's still FAR too freaking dangerous. Better off with robots.
And yes, I realize that robots can't do a lot of things that humans can. However, in the time span that it takes to make interplanetary travel to send actual humans there without it being a suicide mission, robotics will also have improved. For a lot of things that can't be accomplished now, the answer is "build better robots" rather than "try to get humans to survive the trip there and back."
Also, I do not want to understate the risk of contamination. Especially when we're talking about a world which now may contain life (or have previously contained life), it is EXTREMELY important to minimize the risk of contamination. Seeing as how Earth is the ONLY planet known to have EVER contained life, this necessarily means that EVERYTHING we know about life is derived from our knowledge of life on Earth. It is of the utmost importance to discover life on other worlds that has developed completely independently from life on Earth. I don't think people realize how bad it would be if we sent human beings to die and rot on a world which may have had life evolve independently from Earth. That would potentially ruin the results if life on that world were later discovered.
Also, colonization of other worlds is ultimately necessary for our long term survival, but something like a Mars colony won't cut it. Why? Because Mars is utterly inhospitable to human life, and a colony there necessarily needs to be tied to Earth in order to survive long-term. If Earth gets destroyed while colonists are on Mars, the colonists on Mars are still f***ed. Their colony might enable them to survive another 10 years past the destruction of Earth, or 100 years, or 1000 years. But they're still f****ed because Mars is not a suitable replacement for Earth. If Earth ever becomes uninhabitable for humans, we need a REPLACEMENT for Earth, not just a dead inhospitable rock that happens to have a colony on it. Finding a REPLACEMENT for Earth is going to require INTERSTELLAR travel. And we're clearly not anywhere close to that being feasible when it's still too dangerous for us to put a colony on Mars.
So, yeah...human survival depends on us leaving Earth, but that's still THOUSANDS of years away from happening (best case scenario). If something happens to make the Earth uninhabitable within the next few thousand years, then we're f***ed regardless of what we do. So we had might as well chill out and not act is if hastily sending humans to die on Mars in some shitty temporary colony that might taint the results of our studies on extraterrestrial life is necessary for our survival. Colonizing Mars in the near future won't have jack shit effect on our survival, so let's just hold on and just keep making better robots.
There is climate change, man is not the major cause of the change. Man is not smart enough to cause climate change even if he wanted to. The sun and the oceans, and the degree of axis of the Earths rotation are the major causes of any change in the climate, not man.
I don't see how extinction of a single species counts as "destroying the Earth." Even if we do starve ourselves into extinction, it seems pretty self-centered to say that the Earth is "destroyed" just because we aren't around any more.
Yet if in both outcomes we're all dead, why split hairs? Maybe work at both keeping us alive and keeping the Earth spherical and sustainable?
I just don't like the dishonest hyperbole. Let's be honest and admit that environmentalism is a selfish pursuit, that we want to preserve things the way they are for OUR benefit.
It just really rubs me the wrong way that we pretend that we're doing the Earth a favor by trying to keep things the way they are, when nearly every species that has ever lived has gone extinct and the Earth doesn't give a shit. It really rubs me the wrong way that we project what's bad for us as what's bad for the Earth. That's a really narrow-minded anthropocentric view that still places us as the most important thing on the planet, and the defining standard for the Earth's "survival". The difference is that it's dishonest as f***.
It's like the difference between a man who beats his kids and thinks he's doing them a favor, vs a man who beats his kids simply because it gets them to shut up. At least the second guy KNOWS that he's an asshole and can weigh the risks and benefits through a lens of realism. The first guy is just delusional as hell.
As George Carlin said, the Earth is gonna be fine. We're the ones who are f***ed. That should be the basis of our environmentalist endeavors, not some hippy wishy-washy bullshit about saving the planet when mass extinctions and catastrophic change are the only reasons why the Earth exists in its current state. By that logic, the Earth has already been "destroyed" many times over, and yet that's somehow a GOOD thing since it resulted in the Earth that we have a vested interest in preserving. Humans and pandas and cute fluffy kittens wouldn't even exist if the world hadn't been "destroyed" many times over, and now we're acting as if it's somehow objectively bad that all those things might go away? No, the only reasons that's "bad" is because we have a concept of good and bad, and we define that thing as bad in relation to our narrow and self-centered worldview. Which is fine, I have no problem with self-preservation. But let's admit that that's what it comes down to: self-preservation.
We humans as a species are destructive. We are the only ones around that actively transforms the world we live in be it cutting mountains down and filling in valleys to build roads, build dams to hold back water, build aqueducts to transport water hundreds of miles, cut steps into mountains just so we can build houses, dredge bays out for shipping as well as land reclamation to build homes and businesses on such, drill holes through mountains for tunnels etc. We create large landfills and make mountains out of garbage which create other problems to including leaching of possible deadly chemicals into the ground water and possible methane explosions.
As a conservative, I recognize this and other things that are happening in the world such as rising sea levels and the shrinking of glaciers planet wide and the only ones to blame for much of this is we as inhabitants. We use products made from petrochemical compounds instead of natural fibers or materials. We toss the garbage out the windows of our cars or just toss it into the backs of our pick-up trucks so it can blow out (mind you there are those who are a bit more environmentally conscience and do things to mitigate such) so that it clogs storm drains which result in localized flooding.
Our use of fossil fuels has contributed to global warming, but how hard, is unknown. Carlin is right, the Earth will fix itself, but in some instances, creatures will have to adapt to our leftovers such as the Great Pacific Plastic Garbage Patch or die due to its existence in not one, but 2 patches due to people just not caring about what they do with their trash and other lifestyles items that get blown away.
We should care about what we are doing to ourselves in what we are doing to our home (Earth) so we can ensure the survival of our species until Earth finally gets tired of us and nature strikes us dead.
Wow, that is absolutely horrible. Greed and selfishness will make this planet uninhabitable for future generations and it'll be much sooner with people like Trump making decisions like this.
climate change is made up by the leftist/liberals to enforce green taxes.
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
Three is no activity on the sun's surface and a mini ice age is predicted. Man didn't cause that. The El Nino that is just ending was responsible for the higher than normal temps in 2015 and 2016 which is now ending and the Earths temp is going to lower by one centigrade this coming year. Man did not cause that either. There is going to be a change in the scientific community in 2017 which will affect climate change science.
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
Three is no activity on the sun's surface and a mini ice age is predicted. Man didn't cause that. The El Nino that is just ending was responsible for the higher than normal temps in 2015 and 2016 which is now ending and the Earths temp is going to lower by one centigrade this coming year. Man did not cause that either. There is going to be a change in the scientific community in 2017 which will affect climate change science.
I hope you are right, and that the hippies are wrong, I really do.
It's just tough to think so, given that for thousands upon thousands (millions, really) the earth has gone through these cycles without man, and now for 150 heavily industrialized years or so we are seeing these changes.
*shrug*
we shall see.
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
See what I said about us being the most destructive species on the planet. It will only be after our demise that the planet will be OK.
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
Three is no activity on the sun's surface and a mini ice age is predicted. Man didn't cause that. The El Nino that is just ending was responsible for the higher than normal temps in 2015 and 2016 which is now ending and the Earths temp is going to lower by one centigrade this coming year. Man did not cause that either. There is going to be a change in the scientific community in 2017 which will affect climate change science.
I hope you are right, and that the hippies are wrong, I really do.
It's just tough to think so, given that for thousands upon thousands (millions, really) the earth has gone through these cycles without man, and now for 150 heavily industrialized years or so we are seeing these changes.
*shrug*
we shall see.
JimB never has a clue about anything he's talking about.
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
No, that's not what anyone's saying. Get your fingers out of your ears. What I'm saying is, stop pretending like you're some noble white night trying to protect nature when the single biggest thing that life does is adapt to new conditions.
Climate change isn't "free of man's folly", but you're already being biased when you use the word "folly". Humans ARE "natural", our activities are just as "natural" as the world's climate being changed by the waste products of cyanobacteria or something. There's no denying that humans ARE changing the climate, but that has happened plenty of times before and it has never been a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. It's just change, and life will adapt, just like it always has before.
As far as "apathy", that's an absurd notion. Do you know literally ANYONE who doesn't do anything that is neither good nor bad? You're not doing "the planet" a favor when you eat breakfast, but just because it "isn't good or bad" doesn't mean you starve yourself. What you do is you eat your damn breakfast because you're hungry. That's right, not in order to "save the planet" or "protect the environment", but because you're hungry. Is that an example of apathy, a determination that "it isn't helping the planet, therefore I won't do it"? No, people do what's in their best interests. Just like the bears, just like the deer, just like the flies. A lion isn't "saving the planet" when it eats an antelope, it's just getting dinner. Neither are you when you do literally anything. Get off your high horse. We're not above nature, we're not the protectors of the planet. Just like everything else, we're just another natural organism and we do precisely what we've evolved to do. When we act in a natural capacity, that isn't "folly" any more than when a crocodile eats a buffalo or when a mosquito sucks your blood. That's just nature. But it's certainly not "apathy", because just like every other animal, we act in our own self interests. The other animals don't need to pretend like they're "saving the planet" in order to perform actions, and neither do we.
@MrGeezer: Whats the point in this hair splitting? Do you want to die? Probably not. Climate change is bad for anyone that isn't a part of a doomsday cult.
@MrGeezer: Whats the point in this hair splitting? Do you want to die? Probably not. Climate change is bad for anyone that isn't a part of a doomsday cult.
By that same token, there's no reason to object to anything I've said unless you're "splitting hairs". Nothing I've said is supportive of apathy, nothing I've said implies that we should continue changing the climate or otherwise changing the planet, everything I've said is entirely consistent with a responsible environmentalist approach to our actions.
So why exactly are people "splitting hairs" over my comments?
It's like when people were trying to get gay marriage approved, and opponents were like, "just settle for civil unions...why split hairs over 'marriage', it's just a word." Well, no, if they really believed that then they wouldn't be objecting to gays getting married.
If what I'm saying is just "splitting hairs", then why exactly do people seem to be so bothered by it?
@MrGeezer: Whats the point in this hair splitting? Do you want to die? Probably not. Climate change is bad for anyone that isn't a part of a doomsday cult.
By that same token, there's no reason to object to anything I've said unless you're "splitting hairs". Nothing I've said is supportive of apathy, nothing I've said implies that we should continue changing the climate or otherwise changing the planet, everything I've said is entirely consistent with a responsible environmentalist approach to our actions.
So why exactly are people "splitting hairs" over my comments?
It's like when people were trying to get gay marriage approved, and opponents were like, "just settle for civil unions...why split hairs over 'marriage', it's just a word." Well, no, if they really believed that then they wouldn't be objecting to gays getting married.
If what I'm saying is just "splitting hairs", then why exactly do people seem to be so bothered by it?
I wouldn't call being confused over someones insistence to split hairs 'splitting hairs'.
I'm just curious why you so badly want to make a fool of yourself for absolutely no gain.
I wouldn't call being confused over someones insistence to split hairs 'splitting hairs'.
I'm just curious why you so badly want to make a fool of yourself for absolutely no gain.
So, which part of what I was saying was incorrect? If you disagree with the points made, then it's not exactly splitting hairs. And if don't disagree with the points made, then it doesn't make sense for you to be arguing over something that you agree with.
So, which is it?
I wouldn't call being confused over someones insistence to split hairs 'splitting hairs'.
I'm just curious why you so badly want to make a fool of yourself for absolutely no gain.
So, which part of what I was saying was incorrect? If you disagree with the points made, then it's not exactly splitting hairs. And if don't disagree with the points made, then it doesn't make sense for you to be arguing over something that you agree with.
So, which is it?
You do realise that splitting hairs does not mean "questioning the motives of someone who you may agree with"? Eating shit is disgusting and unhealthy, but I'd still be very confused if someone was passionately preaching against shit eating on a street corner.
Like I said I'm just curious why you're actively making a fool of yourself.
*cries*
No, that's not what anyone's saying. Get your fingers out of your ears. What I'm saying is, stop pretending like you're some noble white night trying to protect nature when the single biggest thing that life does is adapt to new conditions.
I see someone does not understand evolution and adaption, i also see someone who does not seem to understand what the conversation is actually about and the problems we face.
Put them together and you have this dismissive attitude guided by ignorance.
Adaption is a very slow process and is something done on global time scales not human. Best case scenario for hundreds of thousands of species, you're talking a minimal of 100,000 years to adapt to the environmental changes we have already committed to in less than 200 years, in order to ensure survival of the species (feel free to look up the number of species that have gone extinct in the past 100 years and the dramatic climb you see from what would be considered "natural"). Understanding these things is actually part of my professional field, so if you have any questions feel free to ask.
Climate change isn't "free of man's folly", but you're already being biased when you use the word "folly". Humans ARE "natural", our activities are just as "natural" as the world's climate being changed by the waste products of cyanobacteria or something. There's no denying that humans ARE changing the climate, but that has happened plenty of times before and it has never been a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. It's just change, and life will adapt, just like it always has before.
Okay.... so putting it in this sense that "all things humans do is natural", which does has some philosophical merit, is an attempt to avoid the point. The non-philosophical, but scientific point that by the history of what the earth and life has gone through, this is the description of a catastrophic event. Now if you need someone to explain to you why a catastrophic event is bad for any species attempting to do what species do and survive as a species, then i dont know what else to say.
What you do is you eat your damn breakfast because you're hungry. That's right, not in order to "save the planet" or "protect the environment", but because you're hungry. Is that an example of apathy, a determination that "it isn't helping the planet, therefore I won't do it"? No, people do what's in their best interests. Just like the bears, just like the deer, just like the flies. A lion isn't "saving the planet" when it eats an antelope, it's just getting dinner. Neither are you when you do literally anything.
No, you do this because its a natural instinct to continue your own survival, which has a higher calling of continuing the survival of the species.
If a lion or bear or deers environment is under threat, they move in an attempt to survive. Now, there is no moving for the entire planet, there is no moving from this situation for humans, so to ensure survival we address these issues and we do so with the urgency that our species is facing.
I dont find it to be an accident or coincidence that you attempt to look at this from a scientific view, but fail by leaving out the real reasons behind things. Because if you said that we eat to ensure our survival of our species, not because "we want to", as if its an option like playing PS3 instead of Xbox, then you'd be faced with making a very different argument.
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
Three is no activity on the sun's surface and a mini ice age is predicted. Man didn't cause that. The El Nino that is just ending was responsible for the higher than normal temps in 2015 and 2016 which is now ending and the Earths temp is going to lower by one centigrade this coming year. Man did not cause that either. There is going to be a change in the scientific community in 2017 which will affect climate change science.
Man certainly caused all the garbage leaking into the ground and all the plastic bottles in the ocean.
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
No, that's not what anyone's saying. Get your fingers out of your ears. What I'm saying is, stop pretending like you're some noble white night trying to protect nature when the single biggest thing that life does is adapt to new conditions.
Climate change isn't "free of man's folly", but you're already being biased when you use the word "folly". Humans ARE "natural", our activities are just as "natural" as the world's climate being changed by the waste products of cyanobacteria or something. There's no denying that humans ARE changing the climate, but that has happened plenty of times before and it has never been a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. It's just change, and life will adapt, just like it always has before.
As far as "apathy", that's an absurd notion. Do you know literally ANYONE who doesn't do anything that is neither good nor bad? You're not doing "the planet" a favor when you eat breakfast, but just because it "isn't good or bad" doesn't mean you starve yourself. What you do is you eat your damn breakfast because you're hungry. That's right, not in order to "save the planet" or "protect the environment", but because you're hungry. Is that an example of apathy, a determination that "it isn't helping the planet, therefore I won't do it"? No, people do what's in their best interests. Just like the bears, just like the deer, just like the flies. A lion isn't "saving the planet" when it eats an antelope, it's just getting dinner. Neither are you when you do literally anything. Get off your high horse. We're not above nature, we're not the protectors of the planet. Just like everything else, we're just another natural organism and we do precisely what we've evolved to do. When we act in a natural capacity, that isn't "folly" any more than when a crocodile eats a buffalo or when a mosquito sucks your blood. That's just nature. But it's certainly not "apathy", because just like every other animal, we act in our own self interests. The other animals don't need to pretend like they're "saving the planet" in order to perform actions, and neither do we.
dude, I know. I read a study report, it came out after the Deepwater Horizon. It explained that, since oil exist in the ground that, naturally, doesn't some of it naturally leak up to the surface anyway? And yes, it does; for hundreds of years there have been reports of strange black oily slicks on the ocean (often after earthquakes). Nothing to do with man, it just happens. The point? Oil spills are natural!
The issue is that man does it so much worse.
Yes, I like breakfast. I like pork, I like chicken, I like beef. I'd probably eat antelope, too. But the lion? Lions cull the weakest from the herd, and they do it as needed. Humans? They cull the strongest when they hunt. And that's when we can be bothered to hunt; usually we just raise them on farms so numerous their methane has a documented effect on the atmosphere, and we do it in numbers far more than we need.
Humanity is far from living in a "natural" state. Now, I am not saying we should all live in log cabins, use our shit as compost and live a subsistence diet and hunt squirrels...but at the same time, something has to change because what we are doing is just wrong.
I don't want to live in a world where Los Angeles is our standard, you know? Where the Yellow River is "natural" since human self-interest is "natural" so it's OK to make all rivers un-swimmable/undrinkable. I'd rather not live in a town where ash falls from the sky from the factories.
Not trying to say we are above nature, nor it's protectors; just a part of it. If anyone is on the high horse, it's the people that think they're better than nature or not part of it, that we are somehow not beholden to it.
I really don't give a shit any more.. I am so apathetic of the corporate whores, basically every politician has become in the past 30 years... The side that supposedly "accepts" climate change scientific findings support the worse energy policies for said concern to begin with.. The democrat candidate in the general, who was supposedly pro environment, was pro fracking, pro coal, pro offshore drilling etc etc.. I mean I really don't care who accepts that its happening or not, because they aren't doing jackshit about it.. The democrats have had 30 years to push forward energy policies, or to at least push forward mass transit systems.. No instead they are doing the exact opposite while demonizing cleaner and more efficient energy, nuclear! It's a bad joke.. A joke in which the future generations are going to be thanking us for the environment we left them with.
Hence, from our love to eat meat. If we didn't love to eat meat as much as we do, overproduction of cows, pigs, and chickens wouldn't happen.
No, that's more from an attitude of over-consumption in general.
Regardless of what you think the reasons are for over-consumption the bottom line is because of that over-consumption there are more live stock, means more water used, means more methane in the air, means more waste.
holy shit, do people actually think that the climate change that is occurring is natural and free of man's folly? That we should just let it happen and continue on our merry way, spewing forth all our crap?
That is...insane.
And now we have the apathetic-right going "Earth is gonna be fine, we are the one's who are screwed...so why don't you relax." Ummmmmmmm what? So we shouldn't look after our species? That's our excuse to keep chugging along? "Oh, the planet will recover and man's screwed anyway, keep on cranking out the toys..."
No, that's not what anyone's saying. Get your fingers out of your ears. What I'm saying is, stop pretending like you're some noble white night trying to protect nature when the single biggest thing that life does is adapt to new conditions.
Climate change isn't "free of man's folly", but you're already being biased when you use the word "folly". Humans ARE "natural", our activities are just as "natural" as the world's climate being changed by the waste products of cyanobacteria or something. There's no denying that humans ARE changing the climate, but that has happened plenty of times before and it has never been a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. It's just change, and life will adapt, just like it always has before.
As far as "apathy", that's an absurd notion. Do you know literally ANYONE who doesn't do anything that is neither good nor bad? You're not doing "the planet" a favor when you eat breakfast, but just because it "isn't good or bad" doesn't mean you starve yourself. What you do is you eat your damn breakfast because you're hungry. That's right, not in order to "save the planet" or "protect the environment", but because you're hungry. Is that an example of apathy, a determination that "it isn't helping the planet, therefore I won't do it"? No, people do what's in their best interests. Just like the bears, just like the deer, just like the flies. A lion isn't "saving the planet" when it eats an antelope, it's just getting dinner. Neither are you when you do literally anything. Get off your high horse. We're not above nature, we're not the protectors of the planet. Just like everything else, we're just another natural organism and we do precisely what we've evolved to do. When we act in a natural capacity, that isn't "folly" any more than when a crocodile eats a buffalo or when a mosquito sucks your blood. That's just nature. But it's certainly not "apathy", because just like every other animal, we act in our own self interests. The other animals don't need to pretend like they're "saving the planet" in order to perform actions, and neither do we.
dude, I know. I read a study report, it came out after the Deepwater Horizon. It explained that, since oil exist in the ground that, naturally, doesn't some of it naturally leak up to the surface anyway? And yes, it does; for hundreds of years there have been reports of strange black oily slicks on the ocean (often after earthquakes). Nothing to do with man, it just happens. The point? Oil spills are natural!
The issue is that man does it so much worse.
Yes, I like breakfast. I like pork, I like chicken, I like beef. I'd probably eat antelope, too. But the lion? Lions cull the weakest from the herd, and they do it as needed. Humans? They cull the strongest when they hunt. And that's when we can be bothered to hunt; usually we just raise them on farms so numerous their methane has a documented effect on the atmosphere, and we do it in numbers far more than we need.
Humanity is far from living in a "natural" state. Now, I am not saying we should all live in log cabins, use our shit as compost and live a subsistence diet and hunt squirrels...but at the same time, something has to change because what we are doing is just wrong.
I don't want to live in a world where Los Angeles is our standard, you know? Where the Yellow River is "natural" since human self-interest is "natural" so it's OK to make all rivers un-swimmable/undrinkable. I'd rather not live in a town where ash falls from the sky from the factories.
Not trying to say we are above nature, nor it's protectors; just a part of it. If anyone is on the high horse, it's the people that think they're better than nature or not part of it, that we are somehow not beholden to it.
The problem is the rhetoric. Yes, we are contributor to altering the way the environment is on the planet. We have our hand in it, there is no denying it. However, sitting her claiming apocalyptic events will occur in x amounts of years because of this and that is fear mongering. Slapping regulations on industries to make them fail along with propping up another for political reasons is unethical and it is a joke. We have cleaned up our act for some time now. Yes, there are industries out there that don't need to do the things they do with their waste and can be more "greener", but we don't need to put people out of work. The other issue there is nothing wrong with questioning good science. There is nothing wrong with having the ability to THINK FOR YOURSELF. There is nothing wrong with looking at both sides of the coin. However, forcing shit down peoples throat by means of fear is the very thing this country has fought against.
I'm all for having a cleaner planet and helping industries reduce waste and become more efficient with how they utilize their resources. But enough with showing polar bears floating on a piece of ice and at the conclusion of that video get on your private jet to fly somewhere else to show that same video. Its not necessary and it is uncalled for. The world has already become more efficient and cleaner on its own, it did it through innovation and improving technology, not because Al Gore or DiCaprio got on their soapbox on telling how people should live, while doing the exact opposite. Its understood that there is climate change, and there will always be climate change even without humans. At one point there was a sheet of ice that covered the whole northeast of America. Tell me, when that ice started to melt was there cars? Were there big factories pumping out ash into the sky as you say? Lets be a little more reasonable with it and people will listen. For the most part I think everyone wants a clean environment and yes there will always be people out there who don't and just want the dollar. However, I feel we have a pretty good grasp on it and we don't need a constant reminder of how we are polluting the atmosphere.
Regardless of what you think the reasons are for over-consumption the bottom line is because of that over-consumption there are more live stock, means more water used, means more methane in the air, means more waste.
Which is a perfectly fine assessment. Simply make sure youre blaming the right thing, which is over production. Humans have been omnivores for a million years and its never been an issue until over production.
The problem is the rhetoric. Yes, we are contributor to altering the way the environment is on the planet. We have our hand in it, there is no denying it. However, sitting her claiming apocalyptic events will occur in x amounts of years because of this and that is fear mongering.
Lets start using terms correctly here.
Fear mongering is only a bad thing if the claims are irrational or unfounded. If the claims are say... backed up by 99.9% of all scientific data, then its something that needs to be a number 1 issue for addressing.
And the issue is not a apocalyptic events, its the issue of a temperature rise in a short period of time that mammals, which includes humans, cannot appropriately adjust in a natural sense.
We have cleaned up our act for some time now. Yes, there are industries out there that don't need to do the things they do with their waste and can be more "greener", but we don't need to put people out of work. The other issue there is nothing wrong with questioning good science.
There is something wrong with questioning the science we know to be accurate. It means you're denying reality and it means you're willing to accept this science when it comes to literally every aspect of your modern, scientifically driven existence, but on this one issue you'll question the same science that leads to an answer that youre only "questioning" because of political and corporate narratives. If youre just going by the science, and even questioning the science waiting for more unbiased sources to deliver more information, then.... we're there. There gets to a point where its ridiculous to suggest questioning scientific data is acceptable, and like it or not CC has long passed that point. This is not a topic that has at most 30 papers done on it and its not a soft science. This subject has gotten to the point where its as ridiculous as creationists or apologists suggesting to teach the "controversy" of evolution. When the only controversy is one they create that is imaginary and completely invalidated by a topic that is the single most understood theory in all of science. Like it or not with climate change, we have a very good understanding of the implications, the cause and effect.
And lets not attempt to make your position seem more caring by bringing up jobs. You're literally talking about the extinction of hundreds of thousands of animals that would not go extinct otherwise, plus, a risk to our own species. Not some jobs... our own fucking species.
There is nothing wrong with having the ability to THINK FOR YOURSELF. There is nothing wrong with looking at both sides of the coin. However, forcing shit down peoples throat by means of fear is the very thing this country has fought against.
There is when there is not two sides of a coin. And facts are facts, if you're objective about this information to begin with you'd look at it and be fearful anyway. Why? Because its a serious topic that has serious implications for our species. But like it or not, there is not two sides of every argument, this is not an argument of subjectivity between two peoples, its scientific data that has been studied to death and that we know certain things about.
And no, this country has a very long history of catering to people's fears, the problem really seems to be that most have been bullshit religious based, government based, race based, drug based, etc. and its been happening for so long that when we finally get something that is real, that cannot be disputed in the same rational sane way you'd dispute any scientific evidence, people are tired of it and pretend it can be.
IMO one of the worst things happening right now in our society, and something that is the cause for many of our problems, is this idea that facts can be denied. There is not many political or social arguments or debates going on right now, where we dont find this at the core.
At one point there was a sheet of ice that covered the whole northeast of America. Tell me, when that ice started to melt was there cars? Were there big factories pumping out ash into the sky as you say? Lets be a little more reasonable with it and people will listen.
The real funny part of this argument is you get it from people paying attention to half of what is being said. This is like 2nd amendment idiots who can only say "the right to bare arms!" and then pretends as if the amendment is not a half paragraph of detail.
So do you want to be accurate with what youre saying? Do you want to be a little more reasonable and listen? Then lets get it right shall we?
The problem here is while you're describing a natural phenomenon, its something that takes place over tens of thousands of years for a small shift. Larger shifts, hundreds of thousands of years. What our actions have caused is the same changes within a period of less than 200 years. The reason why this notation and distinction is super important is because the survival of mammals depends on it taking this long.
The only real question is, why would you leave this information out? Because, you dont get "its natural' without also getting who, what, when, where, why and how, its natural. Which means, i know youve heard this before, so why do you continue to leave it out when its not up for debate at all? Are you interested in being reasonable? listening? and facts? or are you more interested in constructing a narrative?
For the most part I think everyone wants a clean environment and yes there will always be people out there who don't and just want the dollar. However, I feel we have a pretty good grasp on it and we don't need a constant reminder of how we are polluting the atmosphere.
I question how many people do because it does not seem like many people have a grasp on how dire the situation is. A lot, yourself included IMO, tend to dance around it any way they can. Be it with the topic of jobs, fake science, bad understanding of science or intentionally bad understanding of science, religious reasons, etc.
Look, if the majority, or even half, of the people had a good understanding of these things then we would see these people proclaiming a need to be 90% renewable energy by 2010 and then a must program for less developed countries to make them renewable. Instead what we get is people bringing up the nonsense i highlighted in the above paragraph. Or the shrugging it off saying "i think people have a good understanding of the problem"... when all you can say to that is, clearly not. or we would be doing very different things.
Ive noticed a few people here have a very bad understanding of evolution, adaption and climate. While im not an expert in climatology i can scientifically understand the papers. But when it comes to evolution, adaption, inability to adapt, basically man's reaction to quick climate change, well, this is my career. So if there is something you do not understand about the human side of the topic, i will be more than happy to clarify for you.
@xscrapzx: I can agree with you there. I think the worst thing that happened to "the movement" (I hate calling anything a movement, it makes it sound so hippy) is Al Gore and making it celebrity with various people. THe rhetoric gets old as hell; I think the best thing people can do is make it relatable and hit it where it counts: their wallets, and with solar energy, I think it is finally happening it that regard.
As for the ash comment, yes, at the height of the industrial revolution, when things were unchecked and people had no idea what they were doing and the government did not step in to regulate, it was snowing ash from factories. This was in the late 1800s/early 1900s. I'd rather not go back to that because, you know, science is "political" or human progress is "natural".
Regardless of what you think the reasons are for over-consumption the bottom line is because of that over-consumption there are more live stock, means more water used, means more methane in the air, means more waste.
Which is a perfectly fine assessment. Simply make sure youre blaming the right thing, which is over production. Humans have been omnivores for a million years and its never been an issue until over production.
Sure, you are missing the point however. The reason for over production is because the demand is there causing the over production. If we cut back and hold back our desires and become more discipline then live stock won't be over produced.
dude, I know. I read a study report, it came out after the Deepwater Horizon. It explained that, since oil exist in the ground that, naturally, doesn't some of it naturally leak up to the surface anyway? And yes, it does; for hundreds of years there have been reports of strange black oily slicks on the ocean (often after earthquakes). Nothing to do with man, it just happens. The point? Oil spills are natural!
The issue is that man does it so much worse.
Yes, I like breakfast. I like pork, I like chicken, I like beef. I'd probably eat antelope, too. But the lion? Lions cull the weakest from the herd, and they do it as needed. Humans? They cull the strongest when they hunt. And that's when we can be bothered to hunt; usually we just raise them on farms so numerous their methane has a documented effect on the atmosphere, and we do it in numbers far more than we need.
Humanity is far from living in a "natural" state. Now, I am not saying we should all live in log cabins, use our shit as compost and live a subsistence diet and hunt squirrels...but at the same time, something has to change because what we are doing is just wrong.
I don't want to live in a world where Los Angeles is our standard, you know? Where the Yellow River is "natural" since human self-interest is "natural" so it's OK to make all rivers un-swimmable/undrinkable. I'd rather not live in a town where ash falls from the sky from the factories.
Not trying to say we are above nature, nor it's protectors; just a part of it. If anyone is on the high horse, it's the people that think they're better than nature or not part of it, that we are somehow not beholden to it.
Humans don't live in a "natural" state? Last I checked, our capacity for knowledge and learning is a NATURAL trait, and ALL of our science and technology relies on NATURAL processes. We aren't using alchemy and witchcraft to make stuff, dude. That's chemistry.
What we're doing is "wrong" because "you don't want" to live in a world where Los Angeles is the standard? Since when the hell have the "wants" of a single species been the determination of what's "wrong" for the entire planet? You don't see how absolutely arrogant that is?
I see someone does not understand evolution and adaption, i also see someone who does not seem to understand what the conversation is actually about and the problems we face.
Put them together and you have this dismissive attitude guided by ignorance.
Adaption is a very slow process and is something done on global time scales not human. Best case scenario for hundreds of thousands of species, you're talking a minimal of 100,000 years to adapt to the environmental changes we have already committed to in less than 200 years, in order to ensure survival of the species (feel free to look up the number of species that have gone extinct in the past 100 years and the dramatic climb you see from what would be considered "natural"). Understanding these things is actually part of my professional field, so if you have any questions feel free to ask.
Okay.... so putting it in this sense that "all things humans do is natural", which does has some philosophical merit, is an attempt to avoid the point. The non-philosophical, but scientific point that by the history of what the earth and life has gone through, this is the description of a catastrophic event. Now if you need someone to explain to you why a catastrophic event is bad for any species attempting to do what species do and survive as a species, then i dont know what else to say.
No, you do this because its a natural instinct to continue your own survival, which has a higher calling of continuing the survival of the species.
If a lion or bear or deers environment is under threat, they move in an attempt to survive. Now, there is no moving for the entire planet, there is no moving from this situation for humans, so to ensure survival we address these issues and we do so with the urgency that our species is facing.
I dont find it to be an accident or coincidence that you attempt to look at this from a scientific view, but fail by leaving out the real reasons behind things. Because if you said that we eat to ensure our survival of our species, not because "we want to", as if its an option like playing PS3 instead of Xbox, then you'd be faced with making a very different argument.
Dude, do you think that "catastrophes" are something new? The world as we now know it is only possible because of catastrophes which have eradicated a whole lot of species. That was not an inherently bad thing. On a global scale, it was neither good nor bad, it's just some shit that happened. Is this "catastrophe" somehow worse? Why? What exactly is your position here? That ALL environmental catastrophes are inherently bad (despite paving the way for life that otherwise couldn't have existed), or that it's just this environmental catastrophe that is bad (in which case, I would like some clarification on why)?
Again, this has nothing to do with being "dismissive". I'm telling you that the world doesn't give a shit whether or not we make it. We stop making such drastic changes because we as a species have a vested interest in not changing things too much? Fine. That's self-preservation. But that's OUR problem, not the PLANET'S problem. In the event that we don't make it, the planet will be fine. Lot's of species WON'T have time to adapt, just like during every other mass extinction, and then they'll be gone. Which will pave the way for something else to come in and carve its own niche. And I guarantee that whatever comes after us will NOT be sitting around crying about how we died off and then subsequently allowed them to proliferate. I mean, hell...you're not sitting there crying about the cretaceous-tertiary extinction event. Do you know anyone who thinks that it's somehow BAD that they're alive instead of dinosaurs?
Unless you're arguing that you think we're going to wipe out all life on Earth. That we're going to eradicate EVERYTHING and that there will be NOTHING left to rise up after we're gone. Is that your position? That this particular mass extinction will be the end of everything? If so, please elaborate on that.
Cut back on fossil fuels if you think that's best for our self-interests. Eat your breakfast if you're hungry, drive a car if you need to get to work, make efforts to reduce global warming if you want our species to have an easier time in the future. Just stop peddling me some hippy bullshit about how you're doing what's best for the planet. You're not. You have no goddamn idea what's best for the planet. Even if we had the data to actually make an informed statement on what's best for the planet, then it'd still be impossible to have an impartial and unbiased stance on the issue since our priority lies on what's best for our species. After all, if we were doing this shit "for the planet", then we'd have to accept the possibility that the planet would be better off if we went extinct. Would that be an acceptable solution to this? If a decision was made that the only way to "save the planet" was to wipe out our species since we're a cancer on the Earth, then somehow I doubt you'd be able to get on board with that initiative.
dude, I know. I read a study report, it came out after the Deepwater Horizon. It explained that, since oil exist in the ground that, naturally, doesn't some of it naturally leak up to the surface anyway? And yes, it does; for hundreds of years there have been reports of strange black oily slicks on the ocean (often after earthquakes). Nothing to do with man, it just happens. The point? Oil spills are natural!
The issue is that man does it so much worse.
Yes, I like breakfast. I like pork, I like chicken, I like beef. I'd probably eat antelope, too. But the lion? Lions cull the weakest from the herd, and they do it as needed. Humans? They cull the strongest when they hunt. And that's when we can be bothered to hunt; usually we just raise them on farms so numerous their methane has a documented effect on the atmosphere, and we do it in numbers far more than we need.
Humanity is far from living in a "natural" state. Now, I am not saying we should all live in log cabins, use our shit as compost and live a subsistence diet and hunt squirrels...but at the same time, something has to change because what we are doing is just wrong.
I don't want to live in a world where Los Angeles is our standard, you know? Where the Yellow River is "natural" since human self-interest is "natural" so it's OK to make all rivers un-swimmable/undrinkable. I'd rather not live in a town where ash falls from the sky from the factories.
Not trying to say we are above nature, nor it's protectors; just a part of it. If anyone is on the high horse, it's the people that think they're better than nature or not part of it, that we are somehow not beholden to it.
Humans don't live in a "natural" state? Last I checked, our capacity for knowledge and learning is a NATURAL trait, and ALL of our science and technology relies on NATURAL processes. We aren't using alchemy and witchcraft to make stuff, dude. That's chemistry.
What we're doing is "wrong" because "you don't want" to live in a world where Los Angeles is the standard? Since when the hell have the "wants" of a single species been the determination of what's "wrong" for the entire planet? You don't see how absolutely arrogant that is?
maybe you should talk to people from LA and how much they hate it before you accuse me of arrogance.
I mean yeah they might like the LA Lakers, they might like how they have five ramen shops within five minutes, and they've got the best mexican food outside of mexico (well maybe San Diego does...) but no one likes living in LA. Have you ever tried to go hiking in or around the LA area? There are literally waiting lines to go hiking! That's how bad they want to get out of the city and into nature! All those millions of people hate the city so god damned much they will sit in traffic for two hours and stand in a dirt trail for three hours in 90-degree heat to go hike for a half day.
I totally get your perspective man and hell I even agree with it, to an extent...but c'mon dude. There's a compromise here, and people are trending toward humanity's true natural state. Not this "jet fuel is natural because it's chemistry" stuff. That stuff doesn't occur in nature, not like that.
Not trying to come off like a full blown hippy here but it's hard not to when you say not wanting the planet to be one giant LA Cityscape is selfish *shrug*. I mean, if it's not, then no biggie, that's fine. But if it is, well, that kind of screws over a lot of other species (and people, given the cost of city living). That's kind of selfish, isn't it?
@MrGeezer: how are humans natural? We have gone well past the natural cycle. We manipulate nature itself, our science is advanced enough to make genetic changes, clones, space travel. If you really compare that to a lion eating an antelope...then you really are a nut bag geezer. We opened Pandora's box with the industrial revolution and went through unregulated growth. Even a true capitalist society would have avoided this problem in the first place by charging the full cost of emitting large amounts of CO2 into the price people pay for energy. That itself would have shifted us toward cleaner and cheaper options years ago. What we have been doing by not paying the cost is socialist unchecked greed and now it's come back to bite us in the ass with a vengeance.
@comp_atkins: lmaonade xD
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment