NationStates Jolt Archive

We, as humans, tend to exploit everything for personal gain, both as individuals and as a species. We tend to increase the extinction rate just to get a quick buck. People pay to wear furs from animals that screamed as they were skinned alive. The rain forest is being destroyed for farming, roads, cities, and lumber. Should we risk worsening global warming and make it more likely that we all will suffocate just to build an orphanage in the middle of a rain forest? Should we ruin the scenery by mining for gold? Should we risk ruining Alaska just for those extra oil sources that we "need"? After all, we got along fine without it and the world was a few degrees cooler back then. Should we risk making ourselves extinct for some extra cash by ruining the very things in nature that have kept us alive for millennia? In some cases, democracy is bad for the environment when the public is intentionally misinformed. In other cases, its good for the environment. Case in point, Alaska. The people there voted to ban ariel hunting of wolves. The governer caved in to hunting groups. The governer ignored the people. Without people willing to let it work, democracy can't and won't work. It depends on the public to use it and for the government to enforce it. So, should we exploit nature to "benefit" us? Sure, the orphans might get an orphanage in the rain forest, but some might die because plants vital for medicines were destroyed in the process. It all depends on what we percieve as the greater good or as the lesser evil.

The thing people [especially enviromentalists] love to forget as that for all the "raping of nature" we do, it still ultimately governs us. It can--and probably will--kill us all off at some point. Whining about what people do to the planet is slightly more productive than mowing my lawn with toenail clippers.

But not much.

I know, but boycotts and protests work even better. So what if they shoot the protesters? That'll help the cause by making the victims martyrs.

Uh.... when was the last time the WTO or NAFTA or OPEC changed policy as the result of a protest or demonstration? Changes don't happen because the masses say they should, changes happen when a more sensible or practical alternative is realized, or if new progress is made.

Do you really think that mainstream society honors Greenpeace nutjobs and ALF assholes as "martyrs?" God knows I don't.

There's a difference between someone who simply died for a cause and someone who was killed for a cause without using violence.

Also, the people of Alaska VOTED to ban ariel hunting of wolves. If the people got to vote for something in an election, shouldn't the winning side of the issue be enforced?

Theoretically, yes. Democracy does however, as with any other system, have its distinct flaws. One of these flaws [at least in our system] is that the people we elect are capable of doing things we probably wouldn't approve of if we knew they were doing them. But still, I'm not too certain I understand what you're getting at with that wolf-ban veto thing.

But still, I'm not too certain I understand what you're getting at with that wolf-ban veto thing.

The fact that a bunch of protesting, etc., made enough of an impact for people to vote for the ban.....

Ah yes. Makes sense to me. Protest can be an effective tool, but only a fool counts on it. Demonstrations are one of the few forms of protest that I endorse, as opposed to say, killing people.

But don't ask me to demonstrate for $CAUSE. I'll do it if and only if it serves my interests. Enviromentalists like to retort that "well, it's in your best interests to keep this planet in working order" to which I generally reply "we've been around for a small fraction of the Earth's history, and dominant species have been irradicated by the universe in the past. Humanity, as with any other thing in this universe, will either adapt or be destroyed."

Environmentalists seem to imply with a lot of their arguments that the best way to solve our 'poulltion crisis' is to turn back the clock on many areas of technological advancement. I say let it go and see if maybe--just maybe--it can eventually come up with something that doesnt damn future generations to living on a barren, desolate rock of a planet.

Still, I don't think a complete exhaustion of earth's life-giving resources is very feasable in the near future. Every generation since the Industrial Revolution has passed the buck to me, and I don't see any practical reason why I should kill myself to fix their mistakes.

Still, I don't think a complete exhaustion of earth's life-giving resources is very feasable in the near future. Every generation since the Industrial Revolution has passed the buck to me, and I don't see any practical reason why I should kill myself to fix their mistakes.

The verdict's not out on that one yet. For example the deforestation of Brazil and Indonesia. We really don't know what is going to happen from that.

Finally, Environmentalists are no more different then the business interest types who think they should be unchained.

You get extreame views from any camp.

Humans have altered the Earth since we left Africa....

The earliest example is that in every case when Humans arrived on every Australia, Eastern Asia, Western Europe, North America, South America, Madagascar and parts of northern Asia within a few hundred years nearly every single species of megafauna (mammals larger than a deer) was wiped out as a species. The only rational reason historical anthropologists have been able to come up with is that we ate them all. Megafauna predators (Saber Tooth tigers, Dire Wolves etc) died out shortly after. Few survived (the Auruch in Europe, the Bison in North America) and even they nearly died out or died out in modern times.

Its what we do. Humans alter the environment. All other species adapt (or not) to it.

Democracy doesn't seem to negatively affect that, if anything, democratic governments are more prone to attempt to reduce environmental damage.

Case in point, look at the horrendous environmental damage the Soviet Union inflected on the motherland, in the name of progress.

Kill the humans.
The ultimate enviromental service.

Well humaan is the present problem,but look at it like that....
When only Dinosaurus ruled the earth(cold blooded) they had no need to get food everyday(look at reptiles),so the mamal supremacy did open the door to upper consumption(eat,sleep,eat,sleep...etc,etc...)...I guess we are the refine product of this evolution,with the mac donalds mentality added :rolleyes:

don't you think it terribly funny that organizations such as elf, protest the pollution caused by SUVs by setting fire to a dealership selling SUVs? Thereby causing more pollution in one night, than could ever be caused by the SUVs themselves?

Goddessness']don't you think it terribly funny that organizations such as elf, protest the pollution caused by SUVs by setting fire to a dealership selling SUVs? Thereby causing more pollution in one night, than could ever be caused by the SUVs themselves?

if you mean this guy who get 23 years in jail while rapers or killers don't get that much,then i doubt you retoric is well thought,still i agree those multi would do anything they can to go on,even go on agaist a poor guy shame on then :mp5:

The verdict's not out on that one yet. For example the deforestation of Brazil and Indonesia. We really don't know what is going to happen from that.

If you think we're going to run out of trees, you've got another thing coming. As to the ecological rammifications of the total destruction of all rainforests, I'd have to agree: the jury's still out.

The problem with the majority of environmentalists is that they aren't actually environmentalists; they're anti-humanists. Case in point; in the area I'm living in at the moment, some people protested against the "polluting factories". There was a big debate, discussion and so on, and the decision was made to pull down the factories and replace them with a wind farm. Nice, clean energy for all. Everyone happy?

Oh no.

After about a month of not complaining about anything, our local environmentalists started a protest against the wind farms, because they "aesthetically damage the landscape". At this point, I gave up caring.

The problem with the majority of environmentalists is that they aren't actually environmentalists; they're anti-humanists. Case in point; in the area I'm living in at the moment, some people protested against the "polluting factories". There was a big debate, discussion and so on, and the decision was made to pull down the factories and replace them with a wind farm. Nice, clean energy for all. Everyone happy?

Oh no.

After about a month of not complaining about anything, our local environmentalists started a protest against the wind farms, because they "aesthetically damage the landscape". At this point, I gave up caring.

You wouldn't believe what bourgeois term bourgeois would use to sleep better

Not all environmentalists are raging lunatics. Most of the pure oxygen(not the oxygen in CO2) in the atmosphere comes directly from the rain forests. I do see a resource crisis in the near future(next 200 years). The human popluation hit 1 billion in the 1800's and is around 6 billion now. That is alot. If the population continues to grow, the earth might not be able to handle it. Those cutting down the rain forest would rather die rich than live not as rich. Also, what good is technological progress if it is bad for us? Gasoline engines led to a massive increase in smog in major cities. Nuclear power gave us the Yucca mountain debate and Cherynobyl. The atomic bomb gave us those cold war scares. Readily available toxic gases made the holocaust have such a high number of victims. One of those might have cured cancer or give us an AIDS vaccine. Long range planes aided Pearl Harbor's surprise attack. Pesticides gave us the need to wash our fruit or risk dying. What good is this "progress" if it gives us problems? What good is letting the people of Alaska vote on something if those votes won't count anyway? I'm not being anti-democracy because if democracy is bad, then tyranny and dictators are hell itself.

Not all environmentalists are raging lunatics. Most of the pure oxygen(not the oxygen in CO2) in the atmosphere comes directly from the rain forests.

Somehow I doubt that.

I do see a resource crisis in the near future(next 200 years). The human popluation hit 1 billion in the 1800's and is around 6 billion now. That is alot. If the population continues to grow, the earth might not be able to handle it.

Preposterous. Ever notice what you see when you drive form city to city? Lots of nothing. This planet can hold way, way more than six--or even ten billion people.

Those cutting down the rain forest would rather die rich than live not as rich. Also, what good is technological progress if it is bad for us? Gasoline engines led to a massive increase in smog in major cities.

And it also gave us the ability to travel at will. It's also directly accountable for things like police cruisers and fire trucks and ambulances. Please do try to look at both sides of the issue.

Nuclear power gave us the Yucca mountain debate and Cherynobyl.

It's also vastly more efficient than just about any other energy source we've found so far. Chernobyl doesn't happen every day, and I find it amusing that people are citing it as a--supposedly--damning endictment of nuclear power. Chernobyl was almost 20 years ago.

The atomic bomb gave us those cold war scares.

No argument here.

Readily available toxic gases made the holocaust have such a high number of victims. One of those might have cured cancer or give us an AIDS vaccine.

Huh? "toxic gases made the holocaust have such a high number of victims?" Are you trying to tell me that Hitler wouldn't have found some other way to kill them?

Long range planes aided Pearl Harbor's surprise attack.

Now this is just ridiculous. Telling me that long range avionics is a bad thing because of pearl harbor is like telling me that cars are a bad thing because of auto accidents.

Pesticides gave us the need to wash our fruit or risk dying.

The bad ones, yes. Without them, though, we'd risk pulling our mouth back from an apple with half a worm sticking out of it. On the plus side, Fear Factor wouldn't seem so radical anymore.

What good is this "progress" if it gives us problems?

Because the good outweighs the bad, even in the vast majority of the examples you cite here.

We, as humans, tend to exploit everything for personal gain, both as individuals and as a species.

Yeah, we're supposed to. It's what contributes to longer life spans and a higher standard of living. We tend to increase the extinction rate just to get a quick buck. People pay to wear furs from animals that screamed as they were skinned alive. I don't care about the suffering of animals. There are more important issues to worry about. The rain forest is being destroyed for farming, roads, cities, and lumber. Should we risk worsening global warming and make it more likely that we all will suffocate just to build an orphanage in the middle of a rain forest? Should we ruin the scenery by mining for gold? Should we risk ruining Alaska just for those extra oil sources that we "need"? We should balance our use of the natural resources with the health of the environment. Not just stop progress in it's tracks. Some level of pollution is acceptable as long as it doesn't endanger long term progress and well being of the human species. [QUOTE=Avika} After all, we got along fine without it and the world was a few degrees cooler back then. Should we risk making ourselves extinct for some extra cash by ruining the very things in nature that have kept us alive for millennia? In some cases, democracy is bad for the environment when the public is intentionally misinformed. In other cases, its good for the environment. Case in point, Alaska. The people there voted to ban ariel hunting of wolves. The governer caved in to hunting groups. The governer ignored the people. Without people willing to let it work, democracy can't and won't work. It depends on the public to use it and for the government to enforce it. So, should we exploit nature to "benefit" us? Sure, the orphans might get an orphanage in the rain forest, but some might die because plants vital for medicines were destroyed in the process. It all depends on what we percieve as the greater good or as the lesser evil.[/QUOTE]

The question is, should we care less about our gains and do something better for the environment and animals? Should we care if fur companies skin animals alive because its cheaper than killing them first? Should we care that Alaska's governer ignored the voters and legalize an act that most of the voters voted AGAINST? Should we care that car exaust gave LA smog, we desperately need the forests we are destroying, or that we risk losing valuable medicines by causing mass extinction for profit? The only times the extinction rate was higher was when an asteroid or meteor smashed into the earth. Should we be exploiting the only planet we can live on? I'm not saying we should be eco-terrorists, I'm saying we should save our asses from ourselves. Environmentalism was never supposed to be anti-human. It was originally pro-human until the nutjobs showed up. If we all do our part, we just might live off along with everything else.

Lets talk a bit about smog...

Before automobiles, cities were literally full of animal waste from tens of thousands of horse and ox drawn wagons that brought in food and raw materials daily. Not to mention horses owned for personal transportation.

Fecal matter is a far more dangerous environmental hazard than smog in the short run. It also tends to get literally everywhere as you can't help but track it in. At least smog can be kept outdoors with air purifiers and well insulated buildings.

In actuality, smog is far less pervasive now than it was at any point in the 20th or late 19th Century in large cities. Almost no one burns coal now in North America (except some powerplants and occasional heavy industrial plants) and those now have extensive filters that eliminate nearly 90% of the particulate matter. London had such severe smog in the 1940s and 1950s that on several occasion the air literally was killing people by the dozens daily. Since then, far less coal is being burned and the smog levels have levelled off and then been reduced substantially.

The areas with the worst smog now (and I live in one) are arid valleys with frequent temperature inversions, or places like Houston, which have humid climates with large numbers of hot days where the air is literally boiling and that also creates temperature inversions. Those inversions trap the air and keep the smog in place. Smog in those areas is much harder to deal with, but attempts continue.

Hydrogen power anyone?

Personally, I am all for nuclear fission power. Over the last 50 years, literally hundreds of reactors have been used and the accident rate is extremely low. In fact, in the West, the number of accidents is less than 10 (Three mile island being the worst, and a few minor spills at production plants operated by the DoD and DoE)

Now a bad accident could be catastrophic, like Cherynbol, but as technology is used it gets more efficient and safer. The only problem is disposing of the waste.

Granted, thats a big problem.

Seriously misinformed. There are plenty of coal fired powerplants in the US.

We, as humans, tend to exploit everything for personal gain, both as individuals and as a species. We tend to increase the extinction rate just to get a quick buck. People pay to wear furs from animals that screamed as they were skinned alive. The rain forest is being destroyed for farming, roads, cities, and lumber. Should we risk worsening global warming and make it more likely that we all will suffocate just to build an orphanage in the middle of a rain forest? Should we ruin the scenery by mining for gold? Should we risk ruining Alaska just for those extra oil sources that we "need"? After all, we got along fine without it and the world was a few degrees cooler back then. Should we risk making ourselves extinct for some extra cash by ruining the very things in nature that have kept us alive for millennia? In some cases, democracy is bad for the environment when the public is intentionally misinformed. In other cases, its good for the environment. Case in point, Alaska. The people there voted to ban ariel hunting of wolves. The governer caved in to hunting groups. The governer ignored the people. Without people willing to let it work, democracy can't and won't work. It depends on the public to use it and for the government to enforce it. So, should we exploit nature to "benefit" us? Sure, the orphans might get an orphanage in the rain forest, but some might die because plants vital for medicines were destroyed in the process. It all depends on what we percieve as the greater good or as the lesser evil.
"This we know, all things are connected like the blood which unites one family. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons and daughters of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." - Chief Seattle

Police cruisers? What about smog? What about global warming? We need to stop using oil soon. There are other ways to make cars move people from point A to point B. Of course, the oil company is going to paint this as a doomsday scenerio. Why do you think they are OIL companies? Where do they get their money from?

About the Rain forest, think about it. The rf's are huge and those trees are big.

Science is on my side. We need to stop living for the present and start thinking about the future, because the future is our next present. Tomorrow, today will be yesterday. The world may be big, but the earth is already showing signs of strain. Only a tiny fraction of the Earth is directly usable for our purposes. Most of the Earth is molten metal and rock. We don't even re-use the smae things until centuries later when the dumps finally start decomposing. You'll be surprised how well things are preserved in dumps. You can take a 50 year old newspaper from a dump and actually be able to read the entire thing. If paper can last that long, imagine how long plastic lasts. We need to stop living for the present and plan for the future. Summer doesn't last forever and only a few months seperate summer from winter.

The question is, should we care less about our gains and do something better for the environment and animals? The only times the extinction rate was higher was when an asteroid or meteor smashed into the earth. .

actually, that is questionable. The extinction rate for megafauna was comparable even when humans were using flint spears and fire to hunt with.

Historical Ecologists and Anthropologists now theorize that Australia was converted into mostly desert because of slash and burn agriculture and widespread overhunting.

Humans causing mass extinctions is hardly a new thing. If anything, more technologically developed nations are less prone to overhunt, or cut down all the trees for farmland or firewood, or dump raw sewage into rivers or irrigate to the point that the land becomes oversalinized and worthless.

Now advanced nations do create problems do to habitat modification, but thats how the Earth works. Old ecologies are destroyed and new ones are created.

1,000 years ago, Europe was a vast forest with relatively small areas of farmland. It could barely feed 30 million people. That same continent now feeds nearly 400 million people.

Along the way the ecology of Europe changed. But was there really ever a choice?

Seriously misinformed. There are plenty of coal fired powerplants in the US.

No, I said relatively few... Most powerplants now burn natural gas or oil with only about a third burning coal at this point. Compare that to the early 20th Century when nearly all burned coal.

you also completely missed the point of the rest of the post, or chose not to contest it.

I think... as sad as it may sound, the destruction of the ecosphere is impossible to prevent. However, it remains seen if we will cause a class II or a class III mass extinction. :(

75% of the earths surface is covered in water, do not forget the photosynthetic capacity of plankton. you do know that DNA matching is the most reliable way to track a wooden arrow, right?

What we do, we do to ourselves. What harm we do to Earth, the earth pays back to us. Nuclear power plants may not be the ticking time bombs, but they do produce the worst waste ever. The US doesn't have as effecient plants as Europe. As a result, we have the Yucca Mountain project, which might not happen thanks to evidence of lying in safety reports just to please the higher-ups. Yucca mountain is about 100 miles from Las Vegas, which isn't exactly a small, unpopular town. Three mile island was 30 minutes away from melt-down. The fuel rods literally ate through the concrete.

Like I said, what harm we do to the earthis what the earth will do to us. It's like you damaging the ship you're on until it sinks. I bet if videos of what goes on in fur facturies is released, fur sales would drop.

Not all environmentalists are raging lunatics. Most of the pure oxygen(not the oxygen in CO2) in the atmosphere comes directly from the rain forests. I do see a resource crisis in the near future(next 200 years). The human popluation hit 1 billion in the 1800's and is around 6 billion now. That is alot. If the population continues to grow, the earth might not be able to handle it. Those cutting down the rain forest would rather die rich than live not as rich. Also, what good is technological progress if it is bad for us? Gasoline engines led to a massive increase in smog in major cities. Nuclear power gave us the Yucca mountain debate and Cherynobyl. The atomic bomb gave us those cold war scares. Readily available toxic gases made the holocaust have such a high number of victims. One of those might have cured cancer or give us an AIDS vaccine. Long range planes aided Pearl Harbor's surprise attack. Pesticides gave us the need to wash our fruit or risk dying. What good is this "progress" if it gives us problems? What good is letting the people of Alaska vote on something if those votes won't count anyway? I'm not being anti-democracy because if democracy is bad, then tyranny and dictators are hell itself.


Um... No. Most of your oxygen is generated by little blue-green algae in the world's oceans.
(note that the ocean is over 70% of the world's surface, and BGA lives in most of it.)
the Rainforests are the largest Land bound source of free oxygen.

Oh well, we still would die without the forests. Humans need oxygen in order to live.

No, I said relatively few... Most powerplants now burn natural gas or oil with only about a third burning coal at this point. Compare that to the early 20th Century when nearly all burned coal.

you also completely missed the point of the rest of the post, or chose not to contest it.

"In 2003, the United States generated 3,848 billion kilowatthours (Kwh) of electricity, including 3,691 billion Kwh from the electric power sector plus an additional 157 billion Kwh coming from combined heat and power (CHP) facilities in the commercial and industrial sectors. For the electric power sector, coal-fired plants accounted for 53% of generation, nuclear 21%, natural gas 15%, hydroelectricity 7%, oil 3%, geothermal and "other" 1%." - United States Country Analysis Brief: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

What we do, we do to ourselves. What harm we do to Earth, the earth pays back to us. Nuclear power plants may not be the ticking time bombs, but they do produce the worst waste ever. The US doesn't have as effecient plants as Europe. As a result, we have the Yucca Mountain project, which might not happen thanks to evidence of lying in safety reports just to please the higher-ups. Yucca mountain is about 100 miles from Las Vegas, which isn't exactly a small, unpopular town. Three mile island was 30 minutes away from melt-down. The fuel rods literally ate through the concrete.

Like I said, what harm we do to the earthis what the earth will do to us. It's like you damaging the ship you're on until it sinks. I bet if videos of what goes on in fur facturies is released, fur sales would drop.
1 Your point about nuclear plants producing the "worst waste ever" is debatable. Radioactive waste is toxic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic, but it's not gaseous and it's not liquid. It can be isolated from the environment.

2 Three Mile island was a different situation. Fuel rods in three mile island weren't spent radioactive waste. Three Mile island wasn't a major catastrophe or a common event either.

Nuclear energy is actually a very clean and safe option.

Oh well, we still would die without the forests. Humans need oxygen in order to live.

I don't think we will destroy all the forests. It would take a full-scale planetary black goo disaster to do that...

Calling Chernobyl a nuclear disaster is ridiculous. The people that ran the plant were the disaster. Take a flying guess at what happens when you put a nuclear reactor in what amounts to basically a warehouse. It had virtually no safety features. Western reactors are a much different story. They're built under concrete with safety measures galore. Absolutely mindboggling numbers of redundant safety features.
I wonder if you realize that more rads are emitted from the average big city hospital than a nuclear plant? Storage and containment of nuclear material and waste is relatively easy. Do you know what it would take to shield yoursely from a chunk of plutonium on your living room floor? A sheet of fucking paper. Some materials take quite a bit more than that, I agree, but nothing we are not capable of implementing.
Oh yeah, and this crap about climate change is garbage. It changes every year buddy. It's called Summer and Winter. Pretty drastic changes, I might add. All within a 365 day period.

We need hydrogen powered cars and fission plants soon, thats my motto.. kinda

Not all environmentalists are raging lunatics. Most of the pure oxygen(not the oxygen in CO2) in the atmosphere comes directly from the rain forests. I do see a resource crisis in the near future(next 200 years). The human popluation hit 1 billion in the 1800's and is around 6 billion now. That is alot. If the population continues to grow, the earth might not be able to handle it.

Dont worry about oxygen, human is a really small portion of global oxygen consumption when compared to animals. Also, the oxygen ratio in air is around 20% (I think???), human race will have to reduce is activity the day we are choking from walking 10 m because of the lack of oxygen in air.

On the other side, I would worry about skin cancer, OGM and hormones boosted chiken and the radical ecosystem change global warming is causing

It's great that people with extreme views can come here to argue instead of going out into the world and actually try to apply their ideas.

Also, the problem with nuclear waste isn't that there is any immediate danger of it contaminating the environment, but that the safety measures keeping it securely stored have to be maintained through thousands and thousands of years of economic depressions, wars, regime changes, wexing and waning empires, possible extermination of the human race, etc, etc.

"In 2003, the United States generated 3,848 billion kilowatthours (Kwh) of electricity, including 3,691 billion Kwh from the electric power sector plus an additional 157 billion Kwh coming from combined heat and power (CHP) facilities in the commercial and industrial sectors. For the electric power sector, coal-fired plants accounted for 53% of generation, nuclear 21%, natural gas 15%, hydroelectricity 7%, oil 3%, geothermal and "other" 1%." - United States Country Analysis Brief: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

I stand corrected on current electrical generation... however the point is that in the last century nearly ALL electrical generation was coal powered, with relatively minor amounts of hydroelectricity and other sources

I stand corrected on current electrical generation... however the point is that in the last century nearly ALL electrical generation was coal powered, with relatively minor amounts of hydroelectricity and other sources

You dont account the fact human where consumming far less energy per capita 50 years ago, and the fact we are way more people than 50 years ago. Also, people (old people and asmatic) does die because of smog. But I agree coal have been a nigthmare in the past where city could be under the clouds of coal smoke staining everything in black. Still, airpurifier and cocooning is not a viable solution.

The problem with hydrogene is the energy cost to separate H from H2O.

The problem with nuclear, as mentioned, is where are we gonna put the waste and guard them for thousand of years. Maybe the moon?

You dont account the fact human where consumming far less energy per capita 50 years ago, and the fact we are way more people than 50 years ago. Also, people (old people and asmatic) does die because of smog. But I agree coal have been a nigthmare in the past where city could be under the clouds of coal smoke staining everything in black. Still, airpurifier and cocooning is not a viable solution.

The problem with hydrogene is the energy cost to separate H from H2O.

The problem with nuclear, as mentioned, is where are we gonna put the waste and guard them for thousand of years. Maybe the moon?

Closing the fuel-cycle would eliminate most of that high-level waste through recycling (it would also reduce demand for fresh fuel, reducing costs and environmental impacts from mining the stuff.)
The Tech for closed-cycle nuclear has been around since the late 1960's. Why isn't it being done? Fear.
On a closed-cycle model, your recycled fuel is a material known as "Plutonium". In 1979, the Carter Administration in the U.S. delivered unto the rest of us a long-term problem in the form of an executive order banning work on Closed-Cycle generation because of fears that the fuel, Plutonium 240, would be used by Terrorists to build atom-bombs.
(at least, that was the rationale given)

thus, we're stuck with high-level waste that we have to store, because of politically-motivated bad decisions.

Coupled with an environmental movement that apparently favours keeping dangerous reactors and indisposeable waste around our collective necks for the next 20,000 years as opposed to building new systems (and enabled by the ease of filing lawsuits and the irrational idiocy prevalent in the chattering classes) to deal with the problem. I guess it's actually rational, from their perspective, since it provides an eternal source of something to bitch about and motivate their donors with-a bottomless well of political power.

The moon? It was hard enough getting a few people there. Imagine how expensive shipping thousands and thousands of tons of the deadliest matter known to man to the moon. Terrorists might get the technology to send some nutjobs to the moon and back. Carbon Dioxide turns into pure oxygen because we have creatures that use photosynthesis. Toxic waste can everntually be converted into safer materials. Nuclear wasts remains deadly for thousands of years. One teaspoon can cause a fatal tumor.

Our progress has really hurt us. Refrigerators used to release materials into the air that ate the o-zone layer. We nowsee a gigantic hole in the o-zone layer. What can happen without such a layer? The earth gets very very hot. Why? Microwaves. Those little electro-magnetic waves are also used to cook food really really fast. If those waves can burn a steak in minutes in relatively low amounts, imagine what would happen if the entire earth gets bombarded with them. Will we get radio-active. Maybe just our charred remains.

About Cherenobyl. That disaster happened when they tried to perform a safety run. They turned the power output in reactor #4 down low. What happened? It was too low. The new reactor suffered a partial meltdown. If a mistake could do that, imagine if someone purposely did that. What's the worst that can happen? Two words: TOTAL MELTDOWN!!! We have really dug ourselves into a hole. We need power now. We became dependant. What's the problem? All power sources harm the environment. Dams flood areas. Solar and Wing power require lots and lots of space. Do I have to say anything about fossil fuels? Nuclear power makes nuclear waste which can cause wasted lives and wasted hours trying to safely dispose of it. Human beings may be a small percentage of the world's total population, but we did do the most damage. What did we do? Some dumbass wanted to hunt foxes in Australia. The result? It's overrun with foxes just trying to survive. We introduced Rabbits to Australia. Do I have to say anything? We introduced pigs to those small islands off the coast of California. The damage? They are hurting the population of a criticly endangered fox species. Wolves are causing problems in Alaska, Canada, and Idaho. Why? Because we took them out in the first place and the environment can barely handle both wolves and people who hunt and hunt and hunt just for pleasure. We are part of the problem. Let's be part of the solution.

You dont account the fact human where consumming far less energy per capita 50 years ago, and the fact we are way more people than 50 years ago. Also, people (old people and asmatic) does die because of smog. But I agree coal have been a nigthmare in the past where city could be under the clouds of coal smoke staining everything in black. Still, airpurifier and cocooning is not a viable solution.

The problem with hydrogene is the energy cost to separate H from H2O.

The problem with nuclear, as mentioned, is where are we gonna put the waste and guard them for thousand of years. Maybe the moon?

the problems with hydrogen and nuclear fission were noted.... although in the long term hydrogen is certainly the way to go once further technology advances are made. Solar is also a critical long term solution, although once again technology improvements are needed to make the cost benefit worthwhile for widespread usuage.

That nasty problem with what to do with radioactive fission byproducts and material is a big one. There are still no really good long term solutions for it, which is why the dreams of the 'atomic revolution' that many people had for atomic energy back in the 40s and 50s never came to pass. Oh well.

as far as per capita and general overall consumption of energy goes... naturally that is correct, both were lower 50 years ago. On the other hand, if North America and Europe were still relying on coal for nearly all of their electrical generation, plus the various other uses (steel production etc) consider how bad the smog would be now.

The moon? It was hard enough getting a few people there. Imagine how expensive shipping thousands and thousands of tons of the deadliest matter known to man to the moon. Terrorists might get the technology to send some nutjobs to the moon and back. Carbon Dioxide turns into pure oxygen because we have creatures that use photosynthesis. Toxic waste can everntually be converted into safer materials. Nuclear wasts remains deadly for thousands of years. One teaspoon can cause a fatal tumor.

Our progress has really hurt us. Refrigerators used to release materials into the air that ate the o-zone layer. We nowsee a gigantic hole in the o-zone layer. What can happen without such a layer? The earth gets very very hot. Why? Microwaves. Those little electro-magnetic waves are also used to cook food really really fast. If those waves can burn a steak in minutes in relatively low amounts, imagine what would happen if the entire earth gets bombarded with them. Will we get radio-active. Maybe just our charred remains.

About Cherenobyl. That disaster happened when they tried to perform a safety run. They turned the power output in reactor #4 down low. What happened? It was too low. The new reactor suffered a partial meltdown. If a mistake could do that, imagine if someone purposely did that. What's the worst that can happen? Two words: TOTAL MELTDOWN!!! We have really dug ourselves into a hole. We need power now. We became dependant. What's the problem? All power sources harm the environment. Dams flood areas. Solar and Wing power require lots and lots of space. Do I have to say anything about fossil fuels? Nuclear power makes nuclear waste which can cause wasted lives and wasted hours trying to safely dispose of it. Human beings may be a small percentage of the world's total population, but we did do the most damage. What did we do? Some dumbass wanted to hunt foxes in Australia. The result? It's overrun with foxes just trying to survive. We introduced Rabbits to Australia. Do I have to say anything? We introduced pigs to those small islands off the coast of California. The damage? They are hurting the population of a criticly endangered fox species. Wolves are causing problems in Alaska, Canada, and Idaho. Why? Because we took them out in the first place and the environment can barely handle both wolves and people who hunt and hunt and hunt just for pleasure. We are part of the problem. Let's be part of the solution.

And your suggestion is what exactly? Much of what you say is true (setting aside the rhetoric). Man has done a lot of environmental damage. More to the point, mankind has completely altered the biosphere in practically every continent directly or indirectly (in Antarctica's case).

Pretty inevitable though

Our progress has really hurt us. Refrigerators used to release materials into the air that ate the o-zone layer. We nowsee a gigantic hole in the o-zone layer. What can happen without such a layer? The earth gets very very hot. Why? Microwaves. Those little electro-magnetic waves are also used to cook food really really fast. If those waves can burn a steak in minutes in relatively low amounts, imagine what would happen if the entire earth gets bombarded with them. Will we get radio-active. Maybe just our charred remains.

Hey, did you see that movie where there was a giant hole in the ozone layer and microwaves melted the Golden Gate Bridge? Well, that was a moronic movie, because the sun does not emit that amount of microwaves by a longshot. Which is also why a hole in the ozone layer and global warming are in no way connected whatsoever. The problem with holes in the ozon layer is that ultraviolet radiation, will reach the earth, not causing anything to get particularily much more heated than before, but causing cancer.

Yeah. Who needs a doomsday device when people will get the job done faster and cheaper? We have altered the bio-sphere for the worst. Did we really experience real progress? If so, then in what? Wiping off all life on the face of the earth? We are on the right trck for that to happen. If we get more oil reserves and nuclear power plants, is the energy problem solved? Are more problems worsened? People blamed Bush, but they really have themselves to blame. They demend oil. They demand space. They all demand the right to have multiple children. They all demand higher standards of living. My mom was right when she said that we really are the fleas and parasites on the earth. After all, we have been exploiting most things in nature. We have been leaching on the earth without giving much back. At least horse poop makes good fertalizer. Humans are supposed to be the smartest animal on earth. We have proved that the exact opposite is true. We are the dumbest.

About the o-zone hole. It is a hole. Does a hole in the ground always go all the way to China? No. The o-zone hole is just where it is the thinnest thanks to chemicals WE MADE AND RELEASED. Without the o-zone, we really would die. Lack of pressure isn't the only threat in space astronauts going to the moon have faced in 1969 and the early 70's. They needed climate control in their space suits.

The question is, should we care less about our gains and do something better for the environment and animals?

No.

Should we care if fur companies skin animals alive because its cheaper than killing them first?

It's already illegal.

Should we care that Alaska's governer ignored the voters and legalize an act that most of the voters voted AGAINST?

Yes, but worse things have happened. It's not like this is the Patriot Act or anything.

Should we care that car exaust gave LA smog,

Probably. A cleaner alternative is being devised as we speak. Devised by people who don't bitch about problems, but actually fix them.

we desperately need the forests we are destroying,

Most of the trees grown for paper are gorwn on tree farms. Trees are a renewable resource. Just like potatoes or carrots or beets or anything else. Are potatoes endangered because we use them?

or that we risk losing valuable medicines by causing mass extinction for profit? The only times the extinction rate was higher was when an asteroid or meteor smashed into the earth. Should we be exploiting the only planet we can live on?

Like I've said before to many different people, mankind is not resposible for the vast majority of extinctions that are going on in nature today. Got that? I'll say it again in case you missed it: mankind is not resposible for the vast majority of extinctions that are going on in nature today.

I'm not saying we should be eco-terrorists, I'm saying we should save our asses from ourselves.

Many of us are trying. If we don't succeed, nature will kill us off somehow.

Protecting the environment from excessive destruction is the most important and most complex issue we face.

My mom was right when she said that we really are the fleas and parasites on the earth.



You sound like Adam Sandler in Water Boy. Don't believe everything your momma says. Tell me what it is that you picture in your mind when you think of nuclear waste. Be descriptive. I'd like to know what you think it consists of. Furthermore, the maintenance of nuclear waste facilities is not difficult or expensive to maintain. Perhaps the initial cost of building such facilities seems prohibitive but not when placed in the same context as any other government facility. They are all costly to build. Anyone willing to mess with such a place would probably fail in the first place. Secondly they would just end up getting very ill. I don't think many folks will toy with such places.

You should read P.J. O'Roukes book entitled "All the Trouble In the World" It's a little dated but it would certainly shed some light on your alarmist ways. People have been proclaiming the end of the world for a long time.

First off... Beavers! I know humans affect a much greater area than beavers. (understatement) Though i doubt that matters much to every insect and rodent or what not who drowns or is driven out of it's home because of a beaver damn. damn those beavers. All animals alter the environment. I have no evidence just now but I suspect that humans have done wonders in creating habitats for bacteria and micro organisms. Just imagine the kitchen trash. Or uhg a college dorm room.

Second. Those medicines we're all worried about destroying along with the rain forest would only prolong human lives. Or those of our chosen pets. Lives which will require more space, food, and if they're lucky clothing and a great burger from Burger King now and then.

Third. Complaining doesn't solve anything, and seeing as how we've already made these problems it's up to us to solve them. I'm betting on technology to do just that. I'm putting my money on nano tech.

Environmentalist who aren't wackos or hypocrites are called regular people.

Protecting the environment from excessive destruction is the most important and most complex issue we face.




No it isn't. It's pretty damn simple really. If you want it so badly, pay for it.
That'll be 15 bucks a gallon at the pump. Your electric bill just came. It's $1700. We accept checks. Oh you feel sick now? Sorry hospitals are closed because of the toxic biohazard and radioactive waste they produce.

If people today want a cleaner environment they really need to ask themselves if they can afford one.

No it isn't. It's pretty damn simple really. If you want it so badly, pay for it.
That'll be 15 bucks a gallon at the pump. Your electric bill just came. It's $1700. We accept checks. Oh you feel sick now? Sorry hospitals are closed because of the toxic biohazard and radioactive waste they produce.

If people today want a cleaner environment they really need to ask themselves if they can afford one.

lol true, that would suck though, but remember, inflation ;)

You can fix just about anything by throwing money at it.

You should read P.J. O'Roukes book entitled "All the Trouble In the World" It's a little dated but it would certainly shed some light on your alarmist ways. People have been proclaiming the end of the world for a long time.

that was a good one, especially the chapter on Bangladesh... although he didn't have alot of good things to say about Somalia (and who can blame him)

just to liven up the discussion a bit...

there is also a theory that the only reason we are not in an Ice Age now is because of the Industrial Revolution and its causing a general rise in overall global temperatures, thus offsetting the tendency for the interglacial periods to end about at the 10 - 15,000 year mark..

of course the other theory is that the trend toward global warming will melt the Greenland Ice Cap, triggering a change in the Gulf Stream which will cause a new Ice Age that way...

then there is the theory that the Gulf Stream has shifted a couple times this interglacial and it has no effect in causing Ice Ages...

complex stuff global climate models

Complex stuff, indeed. The end of the world will soon be at hand thanks to the greed and ignorance ifesting human nature. At least the end of the human world may soon happen. We destroy the environment on a regular basis. We wage stupid wars against eachother because we think the other side is inferior and doesn't deserve to live. nuclear power isn't clean and was never clean. Look at nuclear waste. It may be able to be contained in little containers very easily, but how long can we keep them contained? There are several proposed ideas, including sending the cr*p to the sun, the moon, Yucca Mountain, or deep underground. Maybe even below the crust. None of these ideas are plausible. Such space missions will be costly and risky. Yucca Mountain is a mountain in the middle of a political mess between corrupt government workers and local citizens. Nuclear waste might come to the surface through a volcanic eruption.

Complex stuff, indeed. The end of the world will soon be at hand thanks to the greed and ignorance ifesting human nature. At least the end of the human world may soon happen. We destroy the environment on a regular basis. We wage stupid wars against eachother because we think the other side is inferior and doesn't deserve to live. nuclear power isn't clean and was never clean. Look at nuclear waste. It may be able to be contained in little containers very easily, but how long can we keep them contained? There are several proposed ideas, including sending the cr*p to the sun, the moon, Yucca Mountain, or deep underground. Maybe even below the crust. None of these ideas are plausible. Such space missions will be costly and risky. Yucca Mountain is a mountain in the middle of a political mess between corrupt government workers and local citizens. Nuclear waste might come to the surface through a volcanic eruption.

or it could be the other theory regarding climate change.... that eccentricities in the Earths orbit and stellar radiation (and flare activity) are more important than any terrastrial factor.

No end of the world theory I know of involves radioactive waste being a world ending problem except for the old Science Fiction show "Space 1999"

whats up Avika? Shall we go back to the hunter gatherer existence? At the mercy of climate, disease and starvation? I have already shown even hunter gatherers had substantial environmental impact (they ate all the mammoths, flightless birds etc, burned down all the Australian forests etc)...

Doesn't leave many options does it? We better hope technology offers a way out, other wise the die offs will be in the billions potentially.

We need to either:
-go back to the hunter-gatherer mode, like you said
-become more environmentally friendly without losing our medicines and whatnot
-Die off

There are no other options available. I once siad," more brings less. less brings more. Is a man who gets all his wants richer or poorer than the one who just gets his needs? In order to gain, something must be lost. The urge to do better than the rest often brings people down."

You may also want to consider this:
I have seen good and it was man. I have seen evil and it was man. I have saw the wise and it was man. I have seen the foolish and it was man. I have seen the smart and it was man. I have seen the stupid and it was man.

Ponder that for a while.

Radio active waste? What about all these wars we have seen lately? What about the horrible damage we did to our only home planet? Nuclear waste is only a chunk of the problem. This may be science fiction to many people, but so was powered flight and going to the moon. Heck, even going faster than sound would sound crazy if it hadn't happened yet. In the June of 1969, going to the moon was pure fantasy. One month later and two astronauts achieved the greatest achievement of the 20th century. Remember that the Earth has limited resources. The resources aren't endless. Forests can take centuries to grow back. Oil is lost forever when burned. Once extinct, living things will never come back without cloning, which should be illegal, no matter what we are cloning. Cloning is illegal for humans only.

Avika, people like you are such a pain in the ass. So full of self-righteous left-wing environmental horseshit. Spouting "the end of the world is imminent!" and the only solutions are that we bomb ourselves back to the stone age or die off. Do you wear a fucking sandwich board everywhere you go? Get off your soapbox you dipstick and start coming up with realistic solutions. Bitching and moaning about things never works. I'll bet even your momma knows that.
As I told you earlier, if the people of the world want a cleaner environment they need to buy one. I'd be willing to bet that if, by some massive, convoluted, ass-backward, GIANT leap of luck, you came up with a method that worked for everyone to have a safe clean environment you'd be marching all the way to the bank. Not to the hunter-gatherer forrest, dropping all your clothes and anything store bought, to live a blissfull life of itching and scratching, sunburns, disease, and predators from whom you have no defence. Do you even know how to hunt? I imagine that, for you, killing a rabbit for a meal would bring on a wailing guilt fit and nightmares for "many moons".

Radio active waste? What about all these wars we have seen lately? What about the horrible damage we did to our only home planet? Nuclear waste is only a chunk of the problem. This may be science fiction to many people, but so was powered flight and going to the moon. Heck, even going faster than sound would sound crazy if it hadn't happened yet. In the June of 1969, going to the moon was pure fantasy. One month later and two astronauts achieved the greatest achievement of the 20th century. Remember that the Earth has limited resources. The resources aren't endless. Forests can take centuries to grow back. Oil is lost forever when burned. Once extinct, living things will never come back without cloning, which should be illegal, no matter what we are cloning. Cloning is illegal for humans only.
underline mine
All of those things happened because atleast a few people realized that it wasn't science fiction. Just as there are people today who understand that the problems we face can be solved without living in caves.

for example. Anything Into Oil (http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/)

Radio active waste? What about all these wars we have seen lately? What about the horrible damage we did to our only home planet? Nuclear waste is only a chunk of the problem. This may be science fiction to many people, but so was powered flight and going to the moon. Heck, even going faster than sound would sound crazy if it hadn't happened yet. In the June of 1969, going to the moon was pure fantasy. One month later and two astronauts achieved the greatest achievement of the 20th century. Remember that the Earth has limited resources. The resources aren't endless. Forests can take centuries to grow back. Oil is lost forever when burned. Once extinct, living things will never come back without cloning, which should be illegal, no matter what we are cloning. Cloning is illegal for humans only.

What, exactly, do you mean by this rambling pointless rant? The first eight statements seem to have nothing in common with the rest. C'mon put the sandwich boards down try to make some sense for the first time in this thread.

We need to either:
-go back to the hunter-gatherer mode, like you said
-become more environmentally friendly without losing our medicines and whatnot
-Die off

There are no other options available. I once siad," more brings less. less brings more. Is a man who gets all his wants richer or poorer than the one who just gets his needs? In order to gain, something must be lost. The urge to do better than the rest often brings people down."

You may also want to consider this:
I have seen good and it was man. I have seen evil and it was man. I have saw the wise and it was man. I have seen the foolish and it was man. I have seen the smart and it was man. I have seen the stupid and it was man.

Ponder that for a while.

I am afraid I will have to chose none of the three options indicated...

there are 6 Billion people living on this planet, each of them has the same rights, many of the same dreams and aspirations as any of us here. The Earth 10,000 years ago before agriculture probably supported only a few million of us. Guess what? Hunter Gathering isn't going to work for 95% of the people living on this planet.

Humans will not chose that option, nor will they chose to die off. Now it is possible God / Nature (take your choice philosophically) will make some choices for us, whether we want it to or not.

But humans will not make that choice.

If you are so certain about those choices, why are you using a computer, using electricity, eating food you didn't grow or catch?

Now obviously strides have to be made to ensure that human activity doesnt overstress the carrying capacity of the ecosphere in order to avoid mass die offs. Technology holds many of the answers to that. So does the way we behave. But no one is going to make sacrifices in lifestyle or even life to serve some nebelous goal of protecting Nature. There has to be a motivator that involves obvious and clear cut survival or economic gain or to prevent economic pain.

You have yet to offer anything beyond "the sky is falling" cries of nebelous warning, and some of your facts and theories are highly debatable.

We need to protect our environment. It is our only lifeline. We'll need much better technology to live on the moon or on Mars. It is impossible without much better technology. Our population is 6 billion and growing. Sure, 6 billion might not be that bad, but what about 10 billion? 15 billion? Our earth has a limit on how many people it can sustain. This isn't another "pixies are getting mad and will kill us all" rant. This is "look what's happening. Look what science is saying will happen if this keeps up. Look at what we do to ourselves with our urge to keep our population growing and our urge to wage wars." argument. I used the knowledge of science and my observations. Space is not the issue. Supply is. Remember:
The earth has been getting much hotter since the industrial revolution. Fossil fuels release greenhouse gases when burned. There are much more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Experiments and careful observations show that greenhouse gases can make the earth much hotter. In moderation, they keep us warm. In excess, they make us hot.

There is nothing wrong about using cleaner fuels. There is also nothing wrong about reading a book instead of figuring out who will win the car on the island while the losers stuff roaches down their pants in a tub of gravy. There is nothing wrong about walking down the block instead of driving there. There is nothing wrong about recycling or other ways of bettering ourselves. yes, bettering the earth is bettering ourselves. After all, we do live there.

It is unlikely the world population will get much higher than today, since birthrates worldwide are dropping. World population will peak at around 8 billion people circa 2050, and then drop again slowly.
Hence the dystopian overpopulation imagined in the 1970's is very unlikely to happen. Today there are over a billion people less than was expected 30 years ago!

PS: Avika, with all respect for environmental awareness, please stop doomsdaying!

Somebody has to warn people about the very possible consequences of the actions of the human race in general.

Here are some facts:
-Some people are willing to start a nuclear war because there are terrorists in the world who love to kill civillians.
-Some people are willing to profit from the destruction of the environment.
-Human actions on the environment is probably the most important issue in the world because it affects everyone and has many preventable causes.
-Many people just don't care.
If more people are willing to aid the environment of the only place we call home, our demise can and will be prevented. The biggest threat to the human race is itself. Within the past 100 years, wars have increased in both numbers and scale. Just look at both World Wars. They truly were global. Vietnam was the first war in Us history to truly be a quagmire. It is also among the costliest in human life with over 50,000 American deaths. Korea was also costly, and, unfortunately, is called the forgotten war for a reason. Let's also not forget the Cold War. We were so close to doomsday, you could figuratively touch it. I propose an environmental project codenamed "operation save our asses". Us wiping ourselves out may seem crazy, but it can happen when people just don't care about what they do to the only planet they call home.

We need to either:
-go back to the hunter-gatherer mode, like you said
-become more environmentally friendly without losing our medicines and whatnot
-Die off

There are no other options available. I once siad," more brings less. less brings more. Is a man who gets all his wants richer or poorer than the one who just gets his needs? In order to gain, something must be lost. The urge to do better than the rest often brings people down."

You may also want to consider this:
I have seen good and it was man. I have seen evil and it was man. I have saw the wise and it was man. I have seen the foolish and it was man. I have seen the smart and it was man. I have seen the stupid and it was man.

Ponder that for a while.


So... when are you forsaking Civilization to be one-with-nature again?

Oh, you're not.

That's for Other People. You and your 'Earth Loving Brethren' aren't included with the rest of the unwashed, right? The fundamental hypocrisy of the tree-hugging-dirt worshippers is often well past nauseating.
Most of them couldn't survive in the world they want the rest of us to adopt.

Somehow i have the feeling that Avika is becoming the environmentalist equivalent to Jesussaves/HerPower/Ffc2... :rolleyes:

I'm sure most have smelled a troll by now.

So... when are you forsaking Civilization to be one-with-nature again?

Oh, you're not.

That's for Other People. You and your 'Earth Loving Brethren' aren't included with the rest of the unwashed, right? The fundamental hypocrisy of the tree-hugging-dirt worshippers is often well past nauseating.
Most of them couldn't survive in the world they want the rest of us to adopt.

you didn't read option 2, did you?

What about option 2? Does being environmentally friendly without losing our technology and medicine have to mean giving up technology and medicine? That's an oxymoron for crying out loud.

Avika it looks like you have picked a fight with the right wing on NS. You are not allowed to suggest that we be responsible with our environment lest you want to be labelled a dirt loving hippie troll with no sense.

We really should just let corporations and the govt dump all the waste it wants anywhere (especially in our lakes, rivers and oceans) because otherwise you are hurting the economy. Also we should let loggers cut down any tree they see fit to cut down as long as they can make a buck on it. Our health - although dependent on a healthy environment - is not a natural right. It's not in the constitution you know.

Oh I also wanted to say that it's nice to see that you aren't flaming though Avika.

What about option 2? Does being environmentally friendly without losing our technology and medicine have to mean giving up technology and medicine? That's an oxymoron for crying out loud.

It's not. See and wait for the nanotech revolution... ;)

Oh I also wanted to say that it's nice to see that you aren't flaming though Avika.



I noticed this also. I wonderd if perhaps this person was incapable of retorts for lack of wit but I doubt it. Good job remaining civil. Even though I haven't.
Sorry dude. :)

That's all right. I just don't like it when we become dependent on things that hurt the environment, like oil. Refined oil can be devestating to the environment(natural state is almost harmless) and creates greenhouse gases. I admire those who take great strides in making things better for everyone, not just rich corporations who are just trying to make some quick bucks.

Why worry so much? The Mayan calendar ends in the year 2012, people!! We'll be screwed in 7 years, no matter what! :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar#Long_Count

My calender doesn't have a date past December thirty-first. Maybe that's the last day of the earth? Maybe they didn't put anymore dates in because they figured they could do it later? They would have had all those centuries to do it if it wasn't for Spain. Gold is not your friend.

Yea, um, its nice to see that everyone has their "history", "economics", and "cultural beliefs" down straight, but.... even with all this philosophical mumbo jumbo you guys can't seem to get it all.

Anyway, I read the questions and all the back and forth bickering over how the environment should or should not be preserved pending on whether or not humanity is a righteous cause.

I remember in H.S., I had to do this debate project on whether or not global warming was a corporate fault and if its an issue that requires our immediate attention. I was on the corporate side and we won because we proved our case with more facts on how 99% of all global warming is natural, how the earth has been much warmer than today when dinosaurs were around, and how today we are experiencing a stage of global cooling when compared to the last 250 years.

But besides this, why should people not use their natural resources. (Linking to the sci-fi theme) Even if humans weren't the species in question, why should any inhabitants of a region or planet not use their natural resources. I can understand the idea that you don't want your landscape to be decrepid (sp?) and barren, but why should any body of people put their own enrichment and survival behind that of nature's?

Personally, I appreciate my environment and for the quick sake of argument will compare my views similar to those of Theodore Roosevelt. He understood the importance of industrial development and the enjoyment of good hunts, but also recognized that the easiest and most effective way to protect your environment was to form reservations and parks.

I also believe that nature is not a conscious force, but that it is exactly what it sounds like (natural). Stuff happens; sometimes its good, sometimes its bad, but its gonna happen. If we mess up, then too bad. We tried our best and did all we could not to mess up. Some major natural catastrophe might blow us away (like the supervolcano Yellowstone Natural Park erupting) just as well as a some comet or asteroid smashing into our planet. Sure we can be aware of what happens, but we just gotta live it up.

Yada yada yada. I think y'all get the pt.

There is no excuse good enough to justify ruining the environment, considering that's where all our wood, metal, water, etc. comes from. Why should we deplete our natural resources. I recomend that we do everything we can to prevent the total destruction of the environment, the source of everything we have. How can we have cars without metal? How can we have glass without limestone and sand? We are totally dependant on nature to be the main source of everything we need to survive. Besides, we are animals with technology.

Gold is not your friend.

lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

Ok, I'm sorry, but I disagree. :p

Gold was lying to you. It wants you to think that it is good for you so you would get more. Greed makes people kill people.

You mean...... Gold told the Spanish to kil the Mayans? You know, there are still people of Mayan and Aztec heritage in Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, etc.

Terrorists might get the technology to send some nutjobs to the moon and back.

I thought that part was funny.

It is, isn't it.

Avika it looks like you have picked a fight with the right wing on NS. You are not allowed to suggest that we be responsible with our environment lest you want to be labelled a dirt loving hippie troll with no sense.

We really should just let corporations and the govt dump all the waste it wants anywhere (especially in our lakes, rivers and oceans) because otherwise you are hurting the economy. Also we should let loggers cut down any tree they see fit to cut down as long as they can make a buck on it. Our health - although dependent on a healthy environment - is not a natural right. It's not in the constitution you know.

I am a moderate centrist and I disagree with him... mostly because Avika is talking in vague generalities without really going into any specifics as to the root causes of any specific environmental problem or problems, or addressing potential solutions, or indicating why anyone would have a compelling reason to live differently.

To sell (in other words, convince) people to take a more Green approach to life, you have to either make the case that it is in their immediate best interests to do so because of economic necessity, or directly and obviously is in their vital interests for immediate survival.

Vague Chicken Little scenarios about the sky is falling make it very hard for those who are of like mind (want a more environmental responsible approach to economic and consumer economics and living) to convince people.

Fuck the enviroment.

Everything that happens is natural. I am sick of people acting like it's the end of the world, and even if it is, I don't care.

So I guess a bullet to the head is natural. Why protect the environment? After all, everything we have comes from the environment. Cars are made up of things that were once in their natural state. Who cares if we ruin the one thing keeping us alive?

So I guess a bullet to the head is natural. Why protect the environment? After all, everything we have comes from the environment. Cars are made up of things that were once in their natural state. Who cares if we ruin the one thing keeping us alive?

It's not keeping us alive. We are keeping us alive. In case you didn't notice, we are not exactly hunter gatherers anymore.

Look, you obviously don't care about it that much either because you are using a computer. Those things aren't exactly manufactured without causing quite a bit of "environmental" chaos (esp. laptops).

So basically, as far as you are concerned it is okay to do bad things with the "enviroment" as long as you agree with them.

We do depend on the environment. The environment is the land on which our fiid is grown. It is the ground where our metals are mined. It is the water, which we get, purify, and drink. Our things didn't pop up out of nowhere. They are made from things in the environment. Deal with it.

"We are doomed"-crazy person
"the animal never feels a thing"-hunter about fox dying by having its guts ripped out by dogs
"nuclear fission is an impossibility"-dumb ass. I guess Hiroshima never happened in his eyes.