Planet Earth

[Perfection]

That fact that Jerico and Perf can honestly deny that humans are devastating the planet amazes me. It shows just how addicted people are to the viewpoint that humans can do no wrong. Global warming is real, overpopulation is real, destruction of the rainforests is real, acidification of the ocean is real, desertification is real. Anyone who tries to say that these are no coorelated to human actions is either grossly stupid or grossly misinformed.

I'm not saying that humans can do no wrong. I'm not saying that global warming, rainforest destruction, desrtification and ocean acidification aren't real problems nor that they aren't correlated to human action. What I am saying that just because there are significant and important problems doesn't mean that alarmism is called for. We aren't "devestating the planet", we don't need to depopulate or stop development because of this.

 

[Perfection]

Depends on the concentration of humans. In cities the only species that can survive are the ones that can handle huge levels of filth and pollution - roaches, rats, flying rats (aka : pigeons) domesticed animals and humans.

Cities make up a tiny fraction of land usage.

Monocropping destories ecosystems wherever it goes and by definition destroies biodiversity.

Monocropping allows more efficient land usage allowing for land to be left unused elsewhere.

Factory farms pollute rivers and destroy ecosystems also.

True, but there are some interesting ways that we can correct for it. This is a very active research area in environmental engineering and there are many ways to significantly reduce impacty while maintaining production levels.

There's no doubt that human beings in large numbers have a vast and devastation impact on biodiversity. Rainforest has the most biodiversity on the planet (at least on land) AFAIK and we're wiping it out. Just as 97% of Europe's original forest was wiped out by the population explosion made possible by industrialization.

80% of the Amazon Rainforest is still there. While deforestation there certainly is an issue it's not as if we're teetering on the brink of destruction.

 

[Perfection]

Matey, it's clear what it means.

Only to an extent, I think outlined how the vagueness I've seen regarding it on post 16.

Nice one Narz. We should move on from this la-la land psuedo discussion, to how we can put things right as I asked in the OT.

The first step in problem solving is problem definition. If we do not know what our problem is how can we solve it?

Yet you have the time to waste searching for funny pictures so you can type "PC +1". Another dubious claim by Perfection.

That takes 5 minutes, this kind of research would take a lot longer.

The fact that you call human impact on natural systems "a moderate loss" shows you have no clue on the impact of humans.

How so?

He's struggling to defend his undefendable ideal (that industrial civilization's good far exceeds it's harm). His argument is as untenable as a Bible literalist's and he knows it.

Sigged!

Can't win 'em all Perf.

Will check back into this discussion later. Going out for a bit.

I hope to see some intelligent discourse from people who understand the fact that human life is completely dependent on our landbases and the life therein for survival rather than the abstract concepts of economics, stock prices and currency (which mean nothing when your wheat fields turn to desert and there are no salmon left in the rivers).

But that's not happening, we aren't seeing our food supply suddenly dry up due to enviornmental problems!

 

[Narz]

Wait... it doesn't?

I was planning to start a thread on the pros and cons of civilization (not just "Western civilization" but civilization is general) but am too lazy to do research right now. For all civilization has brought us I think for most of humanity and the animal kingdom (not the richest 20% of humanity of which all of us are, by definition, a part - since we use the Internet) suffers more now than during most of humanities history (pre-civilization 1million BC or so to 4,000-6,000 BC or so).

It's kind of a tangent in this thread so I won't pursue it now. I'll probably start a thread like this in the next few months or so when I have the time, inclination & inspiration to do so.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I was planning to start a thread on the pros and cons of civilization (not just "Western civilization" but civilization is general) but am too lazy to do research right now. For all civilization has brought us I think for most of humanity and the animal kingdom (not the richest 20% of humanity of which all of us are, by definition, a part - since we use the Internet) suffers more now than during most of humanities history (pre-civilization 1million BC or so to 4,000-6,000 BC or so).

It's kind of a tangent in this thread so I won't pursue it now. I'll probably start a thread like this in the next few months or so when I have the time, inclination & inspiration to do so.

Please do... I'll be ready.

 

[Narz]

I'm not saying that humans can do no wrong. I'm not saying that global warming, rainforest destruction, desrtification and ocean acidification aren't real problems nor that they aren't correlated to human action. What I am saying that just because there are significant and important problems doesn't mean that alarmism is called for. We aren't "devestating the planet", we don't need to depopulate or stop development because of this.

Ok, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Reducing waste and curbing population growth by choice is preferably to suffering the consequences of not doing so.

We are not above the natural system, we are within and completely dependent on it. Our current lifestyles are not sustainable. If we dont' remedy this, it will be remedied by nature, with massive suffering to those who thought they were immune to the laws of growth and decline.

Cities make up a tiny fraction of land usage.

In actual size but you must also consider the massive amounts of land used to create food and raw material (steel, wood, plastic, clothing etc.) that make cities possible. Cities and suburbs could not exist without massive amounts of land being exploited elsewhere.

Monocropping allows more efficient land usage allowing for land to be left unused elsewhere.

At the expense of ecosystems and biodiversity. It also makes human populations extremely vulnerable if a disease wipes out their crops (Irish Potato Famine is one example, I'm sure they are countless others).

I'm True, but there are some interesting ways that we can correct for it. This is a very active research area in environmental engineering and there are many ways to significantly reduce impacty while maintaining production levels.

That is good. I think they should get more money.

80% of the Amazon Rainforest is still there. While deforestation there certainly is an issue it's not as if we're teetering on the brink of destruction.

Certainly many species of animals are though. Don't you think we should have a sense of stewardship for them. Not to mention that most medicines are originally from plant sources (herbal medcine) and by losing them we lose potential cures to the ills of civilization.

But that's not happening, we aren't seeing our food supply suddenly dry up due to enviornmental problems!

Not now. But with climate change and the increasing lack of diversity of seeds (Monsanto and such creating weak strains of grains and such that cannot reproduce, forcing farmers to buy new grains each season) it is so likely it's bordering on inevitability.

How so?

Because humans are changing the climate and annihilating other species dozens of times faster than species were disappearing before mankind (or before totalitarian agricultural socities started massacuring native tribal people starting in the middle east, spreading thru Eruope, Asia and in the last five hundred years Africa, North & South America and Australia).

 

[Perfection]

Reducing waste and curbing population growth by choice is preferably to suffering the consequences of not doing so.

I disagree, we have the intellectual infastructure in place to handle larger populations for the most part. The largest issues are just those of correcting political and economically unstable areas.

We are not above the natural system, we are within and completely dependent on it. Our current lifestyles are not sustainable. If we dont' remedy this, it will be remedied by nature, with massive suffering to those who thought they were immune to the laws of growth and decline.

Our lifestyles are mostly sustainable and the parts that aren't can be made sustainable with small to no loss of convenience.

In actual size but you must also consider the massive amounts of land used to create food and raw material (steel, wood, plastic, clothing etc.) that make cities possible. Cities and suburbs could not exist without massive amounts of land being exploited elsewhere.

Yeah but those areas still can exhibit a fair amount of biodiversity.

At the expense of ecosystems and biodiversity.

How so?

It also makes human populations extremely vulnerable if a disease wipes out their crops (Irish Potato Famine is one example, I'm sure they are countless others).

Not really, global food distribution systems allow us to hedge our bets on multiple regions. We're no longer dependant on a single crop on a single island.

That is good. I think they should get more money.

You really should look at fields like environmental science, they're pretty good at working out these issues.

Certainly many species of animals are though. Don't you think we should have a sense of stewardship for them.

I feel no significant obligation to ensure that all animals are happy and not extinct.

Not to mention that most medicines are originally from plant sources (herbal medcine) and by losing them we lose potential cures to the ills of civilization.

I wouldn't be able to source these claims would you?

Not now. But with climate change and the increasing lack of diversity of seeds (Monsanto and such creating weak strains of grains and such that cannot reproduce, forcing farmers to buy new grains each season) it is so likely it's bordering on inevitability.

Climate change is slow, and diversity of seeds isn't that important because of global trasnportation systems.

Because humans are changing the climate and annihilating other species dozens of times faster than species were disappearing before mankind

That's hardly severe global ecological damage.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Our lifestyles are mostly sustainable and the parts that aren't can be made sustainable with small to no loss of convenience.

I am not so sure about that.

I feel no significant obligation to ensure that all animals are happy and not extinct.

Why not? They are living things to. Why do so many people take a "holier than thou" satnce towards animals, like they don't deserve being able to live on this planet.

 

[Perfection]

I am not so sure about that.

What are you concerns?

Why not? They are living things to. Why do so many people take a "holier than thou" satnce towards animals, like they don't deserve being able to live on this planet.

Same reason you take a "holier than thou" satnce towards rocks. You can't value everything.

 

[tomsnowman123]

What are you concerns?

Golbal warming, which is genrally excepted by the scientific community, overcrwoding, hunger, and the current mass extinction.

A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History found that 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, the fastest to have ever occurred.

I don't think this planet can support the extreme population growth for too long.

Same reason you take a "holier than thou" satnce towards rocks. You can't value everything.

Well, rocks aren't living things.

 

[Perfection]

Golbal warming, which is genrally excepted by the scientific community, overcrwoding, hunger, and the current mass extinction.

Global warming while problematic is not going to be an agricultural disaster, overcrowding and hunger are isolated to specefic regions and the lost of biodiversity does not present a major ecological problem (unless you care the hell out of animals).

I don't think this planet can support the extreme population growth for too long.

Well the growth is slowing, so that's not a big issue weather not we can and the effect on man of the biodiversity losses is not that great.

Well, rocks aren't living things.

Same reason you take a "holier than thou" stance towards bacteria. You can't value everything.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Global warming while problematic is not going to be an agricultural disaster, overcrowding and hunger are isolated to specefic regions and the lost of biodiversity does not present a major ecological problem (unless you care the hell out of animals).

I do.

Same reason you take a "holier than thou" stance towards bacteria. You can't value everything.

Bacteria aren't sentient beings.

 

[Perfection]

So, you agree with me on my other points?

I do.

I don't!

Bacteria aren't sentient beings.

sapience > sentience

 

[tomsnowman123]

So, you agree with me on my other points?

I think global warming can be a huge disaster. And I don't see how exponential growth is truly slowing down, wouldn't the rate of increase be all that's slowing down?

I don't!

sapience > sentience

I'll have to think about that one, but my early inclination is that humans are capable of greater things than any living being on this planet.

And more terrible things to.

But that seems rather obvious.

 

[Perfection]

I think global warming can be a huge disaster.

It can cause some nasty regional flooding but we're not talking about something to be overly alarmed about

And I don't see how exponential growth is truly slowing down, wouldn't the rate of increase be all that's slowing down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
It's pretty well known fact that the growth rate is decreasing.

I'll have to think about that one, but my early inclination is that humans are capable of greater things than any living being on this planet.

And more terrible things to.

But that seems rather obvious.

Exactly we kick more ass, so spot gets the shove!

 

[JonnyB]

I'm talking about the fantastic new nature documentary by the BBC. If you haven't seen it yet it's completly incredible, we are in the second series over here in the UK, you are in for a real treat.

They played the first season in Canada in August and I loved it, it was an awesome series. .

 

[Narz]

I disagree, we have the intellectual infastructure in place to handle larger populations for the most part.

"Intellectual infastructure"? How about when oil peaks and begins to decline? "Intellectual infastructure" means nothing without a sustainable source of energy and a sustainable relationship with the landbase and ecosystem that makes human life possible.

Not to mention our "intellectual infastructure" isn't working out so well for the 3rd world. Millions of people die of starvation, disease and malnutrition every year. Doesn't sound very sustainable to me.

The largest issues are just those of correcting political and economically unstable areas.

The reason they are politically and economically unstable is because they are not self-sufficient. They are overpopulated, often suffering far more from climate change (desertification, drought, etc.), and have lost many of their original skills that helped them live in homeostasis with their environments.

Our lifestyles are mostly sustainable

I think that is inaccurate. In fact that is the most inaccurate statement I've read all day.

and the parts that aren't can be made sustainable with small to no loss of convenience.

2nd most.

Change takes effort. The lifestyle of entitlement and laziness (which I will get into more below in response to another comment I see you posted) has to end otherwise any changes will be small, superficial and completely inadaquete.

Yeah but those areas still can exhibit a fair amount of biodiversity.

Most suburbs have very little biodiversity compared to the land there before the suburbs. Forest are biodiversity. Lawns and parking lots are not. It's a joke to say there is "no significant change".

How so?

How do subrubs and cities and industrail agriculture hurt biodiversity. Look at the American landscape. Look at the forests of North America. At what happened to buffalo. Even the American eagle is endagered. I'd say it's pretty pathetic that the magnificent creature that is supposed to symbolize America is risking extinction because of American activity.

Not really, global food distribution systems allow us to hedge our bets on multiple regions. We're no longer dependant on a single crop on a single island.

Once oil becomes more expenisve we will again have to operatate more locally. Eating wheat from 2,000 miles away, potatoes from 1,500 miles away, a burger made from parts of a few thousand different cows from three South American countries (raised where rainforest used to be) may seem intelligent in the short term (well, even then, not really) but is a terrible idea in the long term. In time, this inefficiency will become more and more expensive. However, ideally it would be intelligent to eat and consume more locally and sustainably before economic pressure forces us to.

You really should look at fields like environmental science, they're pretty good at working out these issues.

If I planned to go back to school I would look into that.

I feel no significant obligation to ensure that all animals are happy and not extinct.

What about foreign people? What about monkies? What about your pets? Where do you draw the line? If someone said they felt no significant obligation to ensure the human beings affected by their actions were happy and alive (say a heroin dealer said this for example) they would be called immoral. How are you different from the heroin dealer?

I wouldn't be able to source these claims would you?

You might be able to source them. Give it a try. IIRC, asprin was originally found in a plant of some kind. Many others also. I'm sure some drugs are made up in the lab but many are inspired by nature.

Climate change is slow,

Not necessarily. Sometimes major draughts and climate shifts can happen very suddenly. You cannot say definitively what the consequences of the current state of human activities are.

and diversity of seeds isn't that important because of global trasnportation systems.

If those global transportation systems are disrupted then it becomes important. It also becomes important if you are in a nation which an embargo is place on. It also becomes important if foreign food sources are found to be contaminated. It complicates foreign affairs and makes a nation more dependent on others to provide their needs.

That's hardly severe global ecological damage.

Humans increasing the rate of extinction tenfold or more in the last few hundred years is not "severe global ecological damage."? It seems to me that unless the first world, or perhaps speciifcally the United States (or perhpas even more specifically your hometown) is punished by nature for mankinds abuses that you will write it off as "not damaging". I am speculating of course. Please tell me what you would consider "severe global ecological damage".

Note : Perfection, from some of your posts (we kick ass therefore we rules, etc.) it seems that you are justifying a dominant relationship with the world - a "might makes right" philosophy.

Reminds me of the phrase "raping the planet" which I used to not take seriously. It is eerily similar though. It seems to me like you're saying the planet is our "b!tch" (if you'll excuse the domestic abuse / prison house analogy) and the pain and suffering we inflict on any other animal or plant species (or the ecosystem as whole) is irrelivant save for it's influence on human beings.

To extrapalate on this you might say - animal cruelty only matters if the animal in question is of value to human beings, otherwise it is moral... an economic imperitive even to exploit that animal (or landbase) by any means necessary.

Would you agree with that statement?

 

[Goa]

Our lifestyles are mostly sustainable and the parts that aren't can be made sustainable with small to no loss of convenience.

This one caught my attention.
Are you serious about this?
Isn't the big part of our energy consumption unsustainable? And hence a noticeable part of the manufactured items too?
And do you know something I don't know about how to replace the part we use for individual mobility in a financable way (without relying to heavily on the magic technological progress)?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Not to mention our "intellectual infastructure" isn't working out so well for the 3rd world. Millions of people die of starvation, disease and malnutrition every year. Doesn't sound very sustainable to me.

You know as well as I do that poverty and hunger will always exist. We can't save third world countries, (Africa, I am assuming you are mostly reffering to) ourselves, and we shouldn't be expected to.

The reason they are politically and economically unstable is because they are not self-sufficient. They are overpopulated, often suffering far more from climate change (desertification, drought, etc.), and have lost many of their original skills that helped them live in homeostasis with their environments.

I thought it was more of:

A) Many are at war.
B) Many have corrupt, unstable governments.

I think that is inaccurate. In fact that is the most inaccurate statement I've read all day.

Sustainable how? We aren't extinct yet, and don't appear to be heading towards that point.

Most suburbs have very little biodiversity compared to the land there before the suburbs. Forest are biodiversity. Lawns and parking lots are not. It's a joke to say there is "no significant change".

But we kind of need parking lots...

?

How do subrubs and cities and industrail agriculture hurt biodiversity. Look at the American landscape. Look at the forests of North America. At what happened to buffalo. Even the American eagle is endagered. I'd say it's pretty pathetic that the magnificent creature that is supposed to symbolize America is risking extinction because of American activity.

Disapointing maybe, but we are at the top of the food cahin, we should come first. It's just survival of the fittest taking it's course.

Once oil becomes more expenisve we will again have to operatate more locally. Eating wheat from 2,000 miles away, potatoes from 1,500 miles away, a burger made from parts of a few thousand different cows from three South American countries (raised where rainforest used to be) may seem intelligent in the short term (well, even then, not really) but is a terrible idea in the long term. In time, this inefficiency will become more and more expensive. However, ideally it would be intelligent to eat and consume more locally and sustainably before economic pressure forces us to.

Once it becomes expensive, business' will immediately make a shift to that of which is cheaper anyways.

What about foreign people? What about monkies? What about your pets? Where do you draw the line? If someone said they felt no significant obligation to ensure the human beings affected by their actions were happy and alive (say a heroin dealer said this for example) they would be called immoral. How are you different from the heroin dealer?

Humans come first! Preferrably me. I just won't deny anyone else their rights, that's the line.

Not necessarily. Sometimes major draughts and climate shifts can happen very suddenly. You cannot say definitively what the consequences of the current state of human activities are.

So why take the doomsday approach?

If those global transportation systems are disrupted then it becomes important. It also becomes important if you are in a nation which an embargo is place on. It also becomes important if foreign food sources are found to be contaminated. It complicates foreign affairs and makes a nation more dependent on others to provide their needs.

It doesn't seem to be heading towards massive destabilization. Too many would suffer for it.

Humans increasing the rate of extinction tenfold or more in the last few hundred years is not "severe global ecological damage."? It seems to me that unless the first world, or perhaps speciifcally the United States (or perhpas even more specifically your hometown) is punished by nature for mankinds abuses that you will write it off as "not damaging". I am speculating of course. Please tell me what you would consider "severe global ecological damage".

When we can't live safely anymore or meet the majority of our food demands, etc. These extinctions don't affect our way of life.

Note : Perfection, from some of your posts (we kick ass therefore we rules, etc.) it seems that you are justifying a dominant relationship with the world - a "might makes right" philosophy.

Again, humans are at the top of the food chain.

Reminds me of the phrase "raping the planet" which I used to not take seriously. It is eerily similar though. It seems to me like you're saying the planet is our "b!tch" (if you'll excuse the domestic abuse / prison house analogy) and the pain and suffering we inflict on any other animal or plant species (or the ecosystem as whole) is irrelivant save for it's influence on human beings.

As long as we survive. Certainly animal death should be reduced as much as possible, but not at the expense of our well-being, comfort, etc.

To extrapalate on this you might say - animal cruelty only matters if the animal in question is of value to human beings, otherwise it is moral... an economic imperitive even to exploit that animal (or landbase) by any means necessary.

Would you agree with that statement?

I would agree!

 

[Narz]

You know as well as I do that poverty and hunger will always exist. We can't save third world countries, (Africa, I am assuming you are mostly reffering to) ourselves, and we shouldn't be expected to.

Poverty did not exist before civilization. True, sometimes tribal people would go hungry and even die out (as all species do) but the pervasive inequality and poverty we see today did not exist.

We can't "save" third world countries. They have to save themselves and learn how they lived before the advent of whites.

Not to say there was no war or suffering before imperialism but the standard of living was higher for most poor people (in a tribal community there are no poor actually because all resources gathered are shared amongst the group).

I thought it was more of:

A) Many are at war.
B) Many have corrupt, unstable governments.

That too but it helps to try to understand WHY many are at war and have unstable governments. Too many people fighting over too many resources (many of which have been drained by Europeans - gold, diamonds, gold, etc.) is one of the reasons. Nations divided by lines drawn by outsiders is another.

Ultimately Africa has to solve Africa's problems (and each nation as a whole and each community below that), grains drops only create more people to starve the next generation. They have to reremember how to live sustainably off the land and reaquire the knowledge they lost about how to do that.

Of course they cannot go back to old ways because the land that sustained them is not the same and populations are higher. Anyway, the answer for other people I don't know. I do know that they shouldn't count of most Americans or other foreigners to care much about their plight. As you and Perf and most others seem to view other people (the land, animals, etc.) as valuable only for what they can provide the local economy (plastic, electronics, resources, etc.) so to you (and the US government) a self-sustaining happy tribe of people is, like animals, a waste of good land that could better be utilized being raped for resources for the 1st world.

Sustainable how? We aren't extinct yet, and don't appear to be heading towards that point.

If we continue to use the planet as we have been, we will be. Fortunately the resources we are using to render our planet unlivable (coal, oil, etc.) will run out before we completely transform the environment to render it unsuitable for human life. In the meantime, many people WILL see their home states become unlivable. So many will die but not all. Nonsustainable living is by definitinon nonsustainable. Would be more respectful to our children (let alone other inhabitants of Earth) to not wait for economic and ecological devastation to force us to change before we adopt more intelligent ways of living.

But we kind of need parking lots...

?[/quote]
So many? Really? I disagree.

Disapointing maybe, but we are at the top of the food cahin, we should come first. It's just survival of the fittest taking it's course.

So if you and I run into each other in a dark alley at night and one of us kills the other that is moral and just because the strongest survived?

Once it becomes expensive, business' will immediately make a shift to that of which is cheaper anyways.

It saves a lot of cost (economically, in environmental damage and in damage to people) to change before then. Plus, shifting to "what's cheaper" is not as simple or easy as you make it out to be.

Humans come first! Preferrably me. I just won't deny anyone else their rights, that's the line.

But living a wasteful life does deny others. The economic choices you make (as well as political choices, food choices, etc.) do effect others.

So why take the doomsday approach?

It is more like a prophylactic approach.

It doesn't seem to be heading towards massive destabilization. Too many would suffer for it.

It seems like it to me. We are too dependent on oil, oil is a finite resource. The ability to transition to a non-fossil-fuel based economy is not there yet and it is doubtful it will be in time.

When we can't live safely anymore or meet the majority of our food demands, etc. These extinctions don't affect our way of life.

They will. If the tsunami happened in your hometown instead of in Asia it would effect you. The destruction of the planet (or rather the damaging of the planet making it less and less condusive to life) doesn't only effect the country that does the damage. Even the "pristine" artic is suffering from pollution.

Again, humans are at the top of the food chain.

So, might does make right?

As long as we survive. Certainly animal death should be reduced as much as possible, but not at the expense of our well-being, comfort, etc.

Should women being raped also be reduced as much as possible (but not at the expense of the comfort of rapists)?

To extrapalate on this you might say - animal cruelty only matters if the animal in question is of value to human beings, otherwise it is moral... an economic imperitive even to exploit that animal (or landbase) by any means necessary.

Would you agree with that statement?

I would agree!

Lucky you're not an animal (or 3rd world human) then. Well, actually it's not so lucky because cause & effect still exist. I don't believe in karma in any spirtual sense but just because you believe something doesn't directly effect you negatively doesn't mean you're always right.