Planet Earth

[JerichoHill]

Somehow, I don't think that the hunter/gatherer lifestyle of tribes was as idyllic and ideal as you seem to present Narz. Now I am not going to claim that Africa's better off, but I think some parts definitely are, and other are on the way up.

We're not going to stop importing stuff from long-distances. Before combustion engines, we had ships, horses, etc. Now have have combustion. Later on we'll have fuel cells. The absolute trend in transportional costs is downward, throughout history. I will not bet on that trend to not continue.

World population is expected to plateau at 8-12 billion (love estimates). It is the poorer countries that are driving any continued growth, as developed countries pretty much have negative birth rates amongst their native population. This is because labor is the method of production in poorer countries, and machinery is the same in richer countries. Thus, in the poorer countries, there is an economic incentive to have large families (and also their death/disease rates).

If anyone wants to here me prattle and list alot of examples of the market shifting from using one resource to another in a short time frame (oh 5-10 years for a complete change), I'd be happy to go into it, as there are numerous examples in the past 5-10 years (how funny).

Everyone here will grow old and find that 1) the world sure has changed, and 2) that the world still has problems, and 3) All the problems that existed 20 years prior are no longer talked about. There is always some new calamity threatening to wipe us out coming along right before we stop discussing the previous ones.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

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.

Well, there was no currency back then, but class distinctions were alive and well.

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

Agreed.

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.

I'd say they are fighting because of ethnic rivalries much more so than resources.

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.

I only wish better for the African people (and all people who are suffering), but don't expect me to go out of my way to help them if it would hurt me.

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.

To me this is just another apocalyptic message that seems to occur every now and then.

So many? Really? I disagree.

I don't know how many, just that we need them.

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?

Nope, I said denying rights of another is where the line is drawn, thus I would never kill anyone.

It is more like a prophylactic approach.

Really?

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.

It will happen if crisis is breathing down are neck.

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.

I still fail to see how some bird going extinct affects me.

So, might does make right?

Towards other animals sure.

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

Nope! Once again we have an example here of the denial of rights. The rapist can rot in jail.

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.

Third world countries would welcome my assertive stance on survival and freedom instead of ethnic cleansing.

 

[happy_Alex]

Everyone here will grow old and find that 1) the world sure has changed, and 2) that the world still has problems, and 3) All the problems that existed 20 years prior are no longer talked about. There is always some new calamity threatening to wipe us out coming along right before we stop discussing the previous ones.

That's a horribly complacent attitude. The rest of you post made sense for once though

 

[happy_Alex]

I’m not going to bicker with those who are ready to exterminate other species, simply because ‘we’re at the top of the food chain’. Well, maybe they’re ready to live in a human monoculture whose main features are golf lawns and out of town shopping centres, but I would like to live in a hugely rewarding natural world and I think future generations will agree...

Land or natural resources are a factor of economic production. To raise environment as a priority for protection means such resources become more scarce, making them more expensive, perhaps to the point where the original production becomes economically unviable.

Take a look at the produce coming out of china, for example, in a Christmas catalogue. Is some of this stuff really worth the cost to the environment? Would you rather have

or

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I get the sense that you almost feel that I want to kill other species. I posted that all animal deaths should be reduced and prevented as much as possible except when it could be used to benefit humans.

Plus, golf lawns and shopping centers are natural.

 

[Goa]

If anyone wants to here me prattle and list alot of examples of the market shifting from using one resource to another in a short time frame (oh 5-10 years for a complete change), I'd be happy to go into it, as there are numerous examples in the past 5-10 years (how funny).

I would be interested (perhaps in a new thread, it's a bit off-topic).

 

[Perfection]

"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.

Intellectual infastructure would be the research and development institution and the knowledge it has produced. And it means quite a bit because they are going to allow us to get a sustainable source of infastructure

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.

Good? No. Sustainable? Yes. If Africa falls apart, we'd be mostly okay. That's no excuse to allow it, but it doesn't make it unstainable.

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.

Incorrect. No western democracy is self sufficient, and yet they are stable. The country closest to being self-sufficient is North Korea, and North Korea is a hellhole.

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

Why? Because it doesn't fit your gloom and doom scenarios?

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.

Most people don't go for the lifestyle of entitlement and laziness. That's generally reserved for jobless hippies. Most people go to work and are massively productive.

This post is long, and my attention span is short, I'll post more later.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I'm going to have to side with Perfection, here. Fearmongers that want to bring our level of civilization down to the level of common animals don't really appeal to me much. So long as humanity is able to sustain itself in the future, I see no reason not to exploit the environment for everything it's worth. And I've yet to be convinced that continuing as we are will lead to a situation where we cannot sustain ourselves. Only that would convince me to join the alarmists.

 

[Narz]

Too many posts, too little time (well, plenty of time really but my GF just finished work and I'm gonna spend some time with her.

Jericho, I don't say the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was necessarily idealic just that they managed to live with a lot less stress and strain on themselves, their neighbors and other species.

Also, progress is not always so linear. Look at the Middle Ages for example. Rome around 2000-whenever it feel was certainly more advanced than it become again for about a thousand years.

Advanced civilizations fall and chaos often ensues for a long time before they are able to pick of the pieces and continue advancing. Also, in history (as in life), not all problems are solved in the nick of time.

I am not sold on aracho-primitivism hook, line and sinker. I actually saw a reasonably intelligent article pointing out many of it's flaws here (though containing some of it's own. I started a thread about it on my forum (here).

GoodEnough, why do you believe a human being should have rights but an animal should not? Do you have any pets? Do you think they should have the right not to be kicked out of the way by some stranger walking down the sidewalk?

Perfection, just because someone goes to a job doesn't mean they are either productive or efficient. IMO, most occupations are damaging to the planet as well as the psyche of the individual working the job (not all jobs of course, I've managed to accquire a few good ones over the years and the one I have now isn't bad ).

Chandrasekhar , calling people doomsayers and alarmists is not an intelligent argument.

Never did I say I want people to start living like animals. I never said we should eliminate ALL techonology and go back to the jungle, just that we should simplify our needs and steamline our technology so it is not so destructive.

Humans are already "exploiting the environment for everything it's worth" and the environment is starting to get a bit pissed off about it (if you'll forgive the personification).

What about giving back to the environment? As a general rule animals that don't contribute to the whole or exterminate all competitors (not to mention many species that support it) eventually die out, kind of like a virus sucking everything it can suck out of it's host and then dying itself when it's host croacks.

Some might think the answer is in space colonization but I think we should get it right here first.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

GoodEnough, why do you believe a human being should have rights but an animal should not? Do you have any pets? Do you think they should have the right not to be kicked out of the way by some stranger walking down the sidewalk?

Once again, I do not believe that animals should have no rights and should be needlessly slaughtered. I just believe that we as humans should come first, and if something that advances us comes at the price of animals, so be it. Kicking a dog on the sidewalk has no purpose.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Too many posts, too little time (well, plenty of time really but my GF just finished work and I'm gonna spend some time with her.

Jericho, I don't say the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was necessarily idealic just that they managed to live with a lot less stress and strain on themselves, their neighbors and other species.

Also, progress is not always so linear. Look at the Middle Ages for example. Rome around 2000-whenever it feel was certainly more advanced than it become again for about a thousand years.

A common misconception, most likely due to the fact that civilizations besides Rome were considered as barbaric by Romans as no civilization at all. The derivative (that is, the rate of change) of technological progress did slow down, but it never significantly reversed itself. Regarding the point that there was less strain on the primitives, I've never really bought that. Fear of death, disease, and anarchy take their own great tolls.

Advanced civilizations fall and chaos often ensues for a long time before they are able to pick of the pieces and continue advancing. Also, in history (as in life), not all problems are solved in the nick of time.

And you say you aren't an alarmist...*

I am not sold on aracho-primitivism hook, line and sinker. I actually saw a reasonably intelligent article pointing out many of it's flaws here (though containing some of it's own. I started a thread about it on my forum (here).

Apologies for not reading the article, as I don't have a whole lot of time. Also, apologies for lumping you in with archao-primitivists. I get touchy when anything resembling them show up. I'm a big opponent of the philosophy.

Perfection, just because someone goes to a job doesn't mean they are either productive or efficient. IMO, most occupations are damaging to the planet as well as the psyche of the individual working the job (not all jobs of course, I've managed to accquire a few good ones over the years and the one I have now isn't bad ).

I disagree, but the comment isn't directed at me, so I'll just leave it at that.

Chandrasekhar , calling people doomsayers and alarmists is not an intelligent argument.

Heh, I never intended to argue with you, intelligently or otherwise. I was just stating my opinion.

Never did I say I want people to start living like animals. I never said we should eliminate ALL techonology and go back to the jungle, just that we should simplify our needs and steamline our technology so it is not so destructive.

Humans are already "exploiting the environment for everything it's worth" and the environment is starting to get a bit pissed off about it (if you'll forgive the personification).

I believe that, in most cases, the returns we're getting far outweigh the costs. I'll admit that we could become more efficient in most areas.

What about giving back to the environment? As a general rule animals that don't contribute to the whole or exterminate all competitors (not to mention many species that support it) eventually die out, kind of like a virus sucking everything it can suck out of it's host and then dying itself when it's host croacks.

I disagree. Those animals that dominate wholey do better in almost all cases. Individual viruses may die, but the strain gets passed on. That which ceases to compete with its contemporaries is overrun. You seem to have an adequate enough grasp of biology that I don't have to go over Darwin with you.

I see what you're getting at, though. If we destroy our planet, we will in turn be destroyed. I've never disagreed with this statement. However, I don't believe that the claims you are making (namely, that we will destroy our environment unless we take drastic action) are supported.

Some might think the answer is in space colonization but I think we should get it right here first.

To some degree. It's all about what's sustainable and what's not. Technological progress will certainly help in the fossil fuels aspect, at least. I'm not expecting Dyson spheres in my lifetime, but we're already seeing some progress.

[size="-2"]* I'm not intending to use these epithets as insults. Alarmism is often a necessary thing when dealing with a public that is mostly too apathetic to do anything useful. My disagreements come from the fact that I don't believe that it's justified in this case.[/size]

 

[Narz]

A common misconception, most likely due to the fact that civilizations besides Rome were considered as barbaric by Romans as no civilization at all. The derivative (that is, the rate of change) of technological progress did slow down, but it never significantly reversed itself.

But quality of life was higher during the peak of Roman power than during the subsequent dark ages, wouldn't you agree? Knowledge certainly was lost (though eventually much of it was rediscovered).

Regarding the point that there was less strain on the primitives, I've never really bought that. Fear of death, disease, and anarchy take their own great tolls.

Well, I suppose it depends on the tribe in question but overall they seem a happier lot than most moderns. I studied a bit about the Bushmen and some tribe in Oceania somewhere. Don't know much about Native Americans.

Fear of death and disease and pretty common among modern man as well. One might argue that past people had less fear of death because they saw the cycles of birth and death (or animals, plants & people) much more vividly in everyday life and therefore were able to accept it as the natural course of things (rather than trying to grapple with it in a ultimately losing battle). Many primitives also had far less disease than Westerners. This is an interesting site about the nutritional aspect of "primitives" lack of degenerative disease (though I don't agree with all of it's conculsions).

As for anarchy. Anarchy is only a problem in large groups. In a tribal (or ecovillage) setting it is less of one. Admitedly I don't know much about anarchy but I'd imagine true anarchy is impossible anyway. In any large enough group (even in a group of three or four) leaders emerge and people create rules.

And you say you aren't an alarmist...*

[size="-2"]* I'm not intending to use these epithets as insults. Alarmism is often a necessary thing when dealing with a public that is mostly too apathetic to do anything useful. My disagreements come from the fact that I don't believe that it's justified in this case.[/size]

If you're using that definition I suppose I can be called an alarmist. However, I don't think I'm exaggerating.

Apologies for not reading the article, as I don't have a whole lot of time. Also, apologies for lumping you in with archao-primitivists. I get touchy when anything resembling them show up. I'm a big opponent of the philosophy.

I see some of it's points but find it overall too extreme. They throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Heh, I never intended to argue with you, intelligently or otherwise. I was just stating my opinion.

Ok, no hard feelings. Despite our debates Perfection and I share similar views on many issues, debating is more fun than argeeing though (and both parties learn more).

I believe that, in most cases, the returns we're getting far outweigh the costs. I'll admit that we could become more efficient in most areas.

From a material and first world perspective it is definitely the case. From most animal's perspective (save for pigeons, roaches, seagulls, rats and domestic animals) it probably is not (less benefit, more cost).

I disagree. Those animals that dominate wholey do better in almost all cases. Individual viruses may die, but the strain gets passed on. That which ceases to compete with its contemporaries is overrun. You seem to have an adequate enough grasp of biology that I don't have to go over Darwin with you.

I see what you're getting at, though. If we destroy our planet, we will in turn be destroyed. I've never disagreed with this statement. However, I don't believe that the claims you are making (namely, that we will destroy our environment unless we take drastic action) are supported.

I do think we are making our enviroment less hospitable for ourselves and future generations. We are making it better in some ways thru technology but also handing them alot of problems to clean up. In the physical world (air quality, water quality, diversity of life) I'd say the cost outweighs the benefits. In technology and diversity of art, ideas and culture (though much of modern culture is crap) I'd say the benefit outweighs the cost (though it is sad how many cultures we had to destroy to get to where we are, not to mention loss of stories, legends and ancient languages dissapearing daily).

To some degree. It's all about what's sustainable and what's not. Technological progress will certainly help in the fossil fuels aspect, at least. I'm not expecting Dyson spheres in my lifetime, but we're already seeing some progress.

IMO, the progress is too slow and people are too used to the luxery of having the fossil fuel equivilant to a few hundred slaves (I don't have a source for that nor do I remember how the author I heard it from calculated that figure, regardless my point stands that we have become very soft as a culture and in any kind of crisis most people would not know how to survive on their landbases without foreign aid, which would be impossible if everyone was suffering a crisis at once).

 

[Chandrasekhar]

But quality of life was higher during the peak of Roman power than during the subsequent dark ages, wouldn't you agree? Knowledge certainly was lost (though eventually much of it was rediscovered).

Some knowledge was lost, some people had less quality of life. As a whole, though, it was a small speedbump. Those Romans were apparently very good at propogating their disdain for the "barbarians." It's a side note, in any case.

Well, I suppose it depends on the tribe in question but overall they seem a happier lot than most moderns. I studied a bit about the Bushmen and some tribe in Oceania somewhere. Don't know much about Native Americans.

Fear of death and disease and pretty common among modern man as well. One might argue that past people had less fear of death because they saw the cycles of birth and death (or animals, plants & people) much more vividly in everyday life and therefore were able to accept it as the natural course of things (rather than trying to grapple with it in a ultimately losing battle). Many primitives also had far less disease than Westerners. This is an interesting site about the nutritional aspect of "primitives" lack of degenerative disease (though I don't agree with all of it's conculsions).

Again, apologies for skipping the article. By the definition of happiness you're referring to, a lobotomy would make you pretty happy. I define happiness in a different way. It is not just a lack of sadness, but also a degree of enlightenment. I suppose some people might have their own definitions.

Regarding disease specifically; the more people there are gathered in one place, the tougher a time disease has spreading through them. Sure, African tribesmen might not have to deal with much disease, but Aztec cities before the Spanish conquest weren't very clean at all.

As for anarchy. Anarchy is only a problem in large groups. In a tribal (or ecovillage) setting it is less of one. Admitedly I don't know much about anarchy but I'd imagine true anarchy is impossible anyway. In any large enough group (even in a group of three or four) leaders emerge and people create rules.

Another side note. A discussion about the nature of anarchy might be really interesting, but I don't plan to start one.

If you're using that definition I suppose I can be called an alarmist. However, I don't think I'm exaggerating.

That's why we're having this discussion.

I see some of it's points but find it overall too extreme. They throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Agreed, of course.

Ok, no hard feelings. Despite our debates Perfection and I share similar views on many issues, debating is more fun than argeeing though (and both parties learn more).

As a side note, I like these sorts of discussions much more than religious ones. Like you said, in these, it's possible to gain a greater understanding of the opposing point of view and those that support it. With the religious debates, both sides merely feel a growing contempt for the opposing side's lack of faith/logic. Not very constructive.

From a material and first world perspective it is definitely the case. From most animal's perspective (save for pigeons, roaches, seagulls, rats and domestic animals) it probably is not (less benefit, more cost).

I rank them pretty low on my list of priorities. Always have to look out for number one.

I do think we are making our enviroment less hospitable for ourselves and future generations. We are making it better in some ways thru technology but also handing them alot of problems to clean up. In the physical world (air quality, water quality, diversity of life) I'd say the cost outweighs the benefits. In technology and diversity of art, ideas and culture (though much of modern culture is crap) I'd say the benefit outweighs the cost (though it is sad how many cultures we had to destroy to get to where we are, not to mention loss of stories, legends and ancient languages dissapearing daily).

As long as we survive long enough to become independent of our natural environment, I really don't care much how badly we hurt it. It sounds callous, but you can expect no less from those who actually will heavily exploit the environment, instead of just talk about it.

IMO, the progress is too slow and people are too used to the luxery of having the fossil fuel equivilant to a few hundred slaves (I don't have a source for that nor do I remember how the author I heard it from calculated that figure, regardless my point stands that we have become very soft as a culture and in any kind of crisis most people would not know how to survive on their landbases without foreign aid, which would be impossible if everyone was suffering a crisis at once).

Then it's a good thing that such a crisis isn't coming (in my opinion). Fossil fuels will run out eventually, but we're already doing fairly well in terms of alternate energy sources. Heck, at the very worst, we can fall back on nuclear power.

 

[Narz]

Some knowledge was lost, some people had less quality of life. As a whole, though, it was a small speedbump. Those Romans were apparently very good at propogating their disdain for the "barbarians." It's a side note, in any case.

Seems like quite a long speedbump.

Though I suppose it mainly occured in Europe, China kind of took over as "most advanced" for awhile until Europe (somewhat) got itself together (and then proceeded to subdue non-Europeans everywhere ).

Again, apologies for skipping the article. By the definition of happiness you're referring to, a lobotomy would make you pretty happy. I define happiness in a different way. It is not just a lack of sadness, but also a degree of enlightenment. I suppose some people might have their own definitions.

I completely agree with you on this. I don't pine to be a Bushman or Native American (or even that tribe of Africans who are really, really tall ). I'm glad to be in the age I am despite it's pitfalls, I think we can learn alot from past cultures as well as from our ansectors (just as Shalin monks can create a system of kicking ass in part thru observing animals). Nature has already invented many wheels for us (so to speak), it might be wise to preserve her somewhat even if only for our own benefit.

Regarding disease specifically; the more people there are gathered in one place, the tougher a time disease has spreading through them. Sure, African tribesmen might not have to deal with much disease, but Aztec cities before the Spanish conquest weren't very clean at all.

Well technically the Aztecs were more civilized than primitive. They just didn't have the level of technology of the Spanairds.

Another side note. A discussion about the nature of anarchy might be really interesting, but I don't plan to start one.

Nor do I.

That's why we're having this discussion.

Agreed, of course.

As a side note, I like these sorts of discussions much more than religious ones. Like you said, in these, it's possible to gain a greater understanding of the opposing point of view and those that support it. With the religious debates, both sides merely feel a growing contempt for the opposing side's lack of faith/logic. Not very constructive.

Indeed. They grow old quickly.

I rank them pretty low on my list of priorities. Always have to look out for number one.

As long as we survive long enough to become independent of our natural environment, I really don't care much how badly we hurt it. It sounds callous, but you can expect no less from those who actually will heavily exploit the environment, instead of just talk about it.

Well, I admire your honesty. However, I think "becoming independent of our natural environment" is somewhat of a pipe dream. Kind of like immortality.

Then it's a good thing that such a crisis isn't coming (in my opinion). Fossil fuels will run out eventually, but we're already doing fairly well in terms of alternate energy sources. Heck, at the very worst, we can fall back on nuclear power.

I'm not so sure, I have read both sides of the issue but it seems that the evidence against peak oil being an issue is not very compelling. In the off chance you're interested I found this forum the other day on the subject of the future of energy : Peak oil forums.

Cheers,
Narz

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Well technically the Aztecs were more civilized than primitive. They just didn't have the level of technology of the Spanairds.

I just meant to assert that increased disease spread rate is inevitable in any sort of civilization.

Well, I admire your honesty. However, I think "becoming independent of our natural environment" is somewhat of a pipe dream. Kind of like immortality.

We live longer now than we did two thousand years ago. With the massive advancements in biology that we've been having recently, I think we'll continue to decelerate the aging process. Both this and becoming independent from any planet are pretty far off, but so long as we continue advancing as a species, it seems inevitable.

I'm not so sure, I have read both sides of the issue but it seems that the evidence against peak oil being an issue is not very compelling. In the off chance you're interested I found this forum the other day on the subject of the future of energy : Peak oil forums.

Seems like there's a lot of deception (and motive for deception) on both sides of the issue. In any case, I don't think that peak oil is going to shatter civilization as we know it.

Anyway, I'm glad that we've found some common ground here. I think I'm going to call it a night.

 

[JerichoHill]

That's a horribly complacent attitude. The rest of you post made sense for once though

You know, I'll actually take that as a compliment. As for my complacent attitude, you'd find that most economists tend to be optimists, so we might just have a rosier view of things. Who knows if trends will change and we will get gloomier?

If there is to be change, and if species go extinct, and the world ends, I suspect it will be "not with a bang, but with a whimper."

 

[happy_Alex]

You know, I'll actually take that as a compliment. As for my complacent attitude, you'd find that most economists tend to be optimists, so we might just have a rosier view of things. Who knows if trends will change and we will get gloomier?

If there is to be change, and if species go extinct, and the world ends, I suspect it will be "not with a bang, but with a whimper."

So what is your actual position? Do you agree that the natural world is worth protecting for future generations AND as you agree that species are threatened, how can their natural environment be protected from the pressures of human expansion and development? (ie: the OT)

 

[JerichoHill]

So what is your actual position? Do you agree that the natural world is worth protecting for future generations AND as you agree that species are threatened, how can their natural environment be protected from the pressures of human expansion and development? (ie: the OT)

Of course I'd agree its worth protecting. I'm not a big fan of a fake plastic tree world (even at Christmas time). However, I think the answer must lie in the continuing advancement of technology.

If you consider how our technology has developed, we'd see that coal-burning furnaces, strip mining, clearing cutting, were all horribily damaging to the environment. For the most part, those things don't occur in the developed or developing world now. That's good progress.

This continued technological march, whilst consuming resources perhaps wastefully on go-nowhere techs or consumer products, does also bring us close to a more ecologically friendly world. I can now afford to buy a Hybrid car. My home is able to be powered almost 100% by solar panels installed on the roof. Communities are being redesigned to be walkable to live/work/play as we tackle clogged traffic lanes and long commute times.

I think that to stop this march, and retreat Ludditely back into the forests, would wind up harming the ecosystem much more. At least now we have sanitation...

 

[happy_Alex]

Of course I'd agree its worth protecting. I'm not a big fan of a fake plastic tree world (even at Christmas time). However, I think the answer must lie in the continuing advancement of technology.

I agree with you (what is the world coming to?) again. For example GM crops have the potential to improve crop yields thus averting food shortages in the developing world.

If you consider how our technology has developed, we'd see that coal-burning furnaces, strip mining, clearing cutting, were all horribily damaging to the environment. For the most part, those things don't occur in the developed or developing world now. That's good progress.

Relative to the industrial revoloution perhaps, but hardly a substantiated idea when we consider the ongoing destruction of rainforrest, for example in the amazon and indonesia.

This continued technological march, whilst consuming resources perhaps wastefully on go-nowhere techs or consumer products, does also bring us close to a more ecologically friendly world. I can now afford to buy a Hybrid car. My home is able to be powered almost 100% by solar panels installed on the roof. Communities are being redesigned to be walkable to live/work/play as we tackle clogged traffic lanes and long commute times.

Here's a question about solar panels, I wonder if the energy taken to manufacture and eventually decommision them makes them environmentally viable. Actually they are only about 10% efficient, most of the sunlight falling on them being wasted, but I take your point. As for hybrids, hopefully that more of us are driving them (I am actually thinking of buying one) will mean further investment in clean technology.
How do you feel about taxing the worst polluting cars, such as 4x4s? (They're also very anti-social)

I think that to stop this march, and retreat Ludditely back into the forests, would wind up harming the ecosystem much more. At least now we have sanitation...

I agree again. I think I need to lie down...

 

[Goa]

Of course I'd agree its worth protecting. I'm not a big fan of a fake plastic tree world (even at Christmas time). However, I think the answer must lie in the continuing advancement of technology.

If you consider how our technology has developed, we'd see that coal-burning furnaces, strip mining, clearing cutting, were all horribily damaging to the environment. For the most part, those things don't occur in the developed or developing world now. That's good progress.

This continued technological march, whilst consuming resources perhaps wastefully on go-nowhere techs or consumer products, does also bring us close to a more ecologically friendly world. I can now afford to buy a Hybrid car. My home is able to be powered almost 100% by solar panels installed on the roof. Communities are being redesigned to be walkable to live/work/play as we tackle clogged traffic lanes and long commute times.

I think that to stop this march, and retreat Ludditely back into the forests, would wind up harming the ecosystem much more. At least now we have sanitation...

Hi,
If I may enter discussion:
I can agree to most of your post, but (hehe, of course a but) I have especially one question on the coal-burning furnaces: Did they change their emissions and install costly filters on their own initiative, or have there been regulations to force them? I'm quite sure it was the latter. Quite recently, a new law on diesel-filters for cars has been passed in Germany. Before it passed, the lobby told everybody that it's impossible to do for a reasonable price, and that the law has to be abandoned. After it was sure that it will be passed, they suceeded of course to develop it quite quickly (in fact, if I remember correctly, Renault allready equiped their cars with them while the germans were still whining).
So what I want to say is that I agree with you that technologcally and economically, a lot of things are possible, but without pressure, industry will allways seek for the cheepest solution (and I can't even blame them, it's a heavy competition out there).
And to assume that everybody who cares about the environnement wants to "retreat Ludditely back to the forest" and to dispatch all there arguments as fearmongering to is just plain wrong (allthough I agree that there are a lot of unrealistic nuts in the green movement, but in what political direction don't you have them...).