NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I have heard the arguement again and again that we(humans) are killing the planet, but so far we have just knocked a few ecosystems out of balance. It would be incredibly difficult for us to actually destroy all life on our planet, seeing as we need other life to sustain our own. Personally I believe that we aren't killing it at all, we are just damaging it...We will not be able to damage it to the point of the planet being devoid of life, It'll just be to the point where we cannot survive in the pile of toxins that we have created, and if that does happen, I'm sure they will be plenty of organisms to thrive in our wastes and the planet will continue on supporting life. Once we are gone the planet will just end up purifying itself and moving on. The life on Earth has continued on through more devastating things than we could make, except nuclear holocaust, which I'm sure plenty of critters would find a way to survive.


Any thoughts?

Is "killing" a definitive, one-time action that occurs or is it a gradually process that is working towards the death of something?

One-time action example:He will kill the man by shooting him.

Gradual process example:What you described in the OP. John is killing Bruce with the baseball bat. His actions are contributing to and bringing death closer to another, but the "death blow" is what does the other person in.

At the moment, it's all just speculation. But as soon as we manage to collect the data we need, we will have a good idea of how much we will damage our environment.

As of now there have been a few predictions calculated, all of which are quite different. We need to wait untill 100,000's of predictions our calculated using tonnes of computers so we can work out an accurate prediction.

At the moment, it's all just speculation. But as soon as we manage to collect the data we need, we will have a good idea of how much we will damage our environment.

As of now there have been a few predictions calculated, all of which are quite different. We need to wait untill 100,000's of predictions our calculated using tonnes of computers so we can work out an accurate prediction.
Sometime around the year 4021, we'll know exactly by how much we've fucked ourselves over.

Now, I have heard the arguement again and again that we(humans) are killing the planet, but so far we have just knocked a few ecosystems out of balance. It would be incredibly difficult for us to actually destroy all life on our planet, seeing as we need other life to sustain our own. Personally I believe that we aren't killing it at all, we are just damaging it...We will not be able to damage it to the point of the planet being devoid of life, It'll just be to the point where we cannot survive in the pile of toxins that we have created, and if that does happen, I'm sure they will be plenty of organisms to thrive in our wastes and the planet will continue on supporting life. Once we are gone the planet will just end up purifying itself and moving on. The life on Earth has continued on through more devastating things than we could make, except nuclear holocaust, which I'm sure plenty of critters would find a way to survive.


Any thoughts?

Since we got only 1 planet, it is in our best interests to be on the safe side even if we arent "killing" it....

Since we got only 1 planet, it is in our best interests to be on the safe side even if we arent "killing" it....
That's a good position to have.

That's a good position to have.

I pretty much agree.

Since we got only 1 planet, it is in our best interests to be on the safe side even if we arent "killing" it....

Wouldn't it be an even better idea to get another one?

I think I saw a sale on the way home.

I agree that it is good to protect our plnet to keep it in the best position to support ourselves, I just think that saying we are killing it is a bit drastic of a way to say it, we wouldn't be able to do that.

We may be killing ourselves but not necessarily the planet...

Since we got only 1 planet, it is in our best interests to be on the safe side even if we arent "killing" it....

Crying shame we dont even know what the safe side is

Wouldn't it be an even better idea to get another one?

I think I saw a sale on the way home.

Hell, I'll give you an entire system with one habitable planet for the low, low price of 9.99, paid in monthly installments for five billion years.

We're not going to kill the planet and we're not going to destroy ourselves. The planet is less polluted today than it was 40 years ago, and the trend of technology is towards greener and more efficient. We're going to do just fine...

Crying shame we dont even know what the safe side is
Safe Side:
http://www.mossglenphoto.com/index_files/New%20Website/mountains/ural%20mountains.jpg

Not the safe side:
http://www.teachengineering.com/collection/cub_/lessons/cub_images/cub_air_lesson02_fig4.jpg

Crying shame we dont even know what the safe side is

As a rule of thumb, it's generally the side displaying an overall lack of pointy bits and/or flesh eating animals.

We're not going to kill the planet and we're not going to destroy ourselves. The planet is less polluted today than it was 40 years ago, and the trend of technology is towards greener and more efficient. We're going to do just fine...
Source?

We're not going to kill the planet and we're not going to destroy ourselves. The planet is less polluted today than it was 40 years ago, and the trend of technology is towards greener and more efficient. We're going to do just fine...
Then what is up with all this talk about global warming is going to destroy the planet? Now, I'm kinda on the same side as you, I'm just curious why there is so many people saying we are destroying the planet. I don't think many environmentalists own computers though, so they wouldn't be able to explain it to me here, would they?

Then what is up with all this talk about global warming is going to destroy the planet? Now, I'm kinda on the same side as you, I'm just curious why there is so many people saying we are destroying the planet. I don't think many environmentalists own computers though, so they wouldn't be able to explain it to me here, would they?
The planet will recover. I just wouldn't wish it on anybody to be around for that.

Then what is up with all this talk about global warming is going to destroy the planet? Now, I'm kinda on the same side as you, I'm just curious why there is so many people saying we are destroying the planet. I don't think many environmentalists own computers though, so they wouldn't be able to explain it to me here, would they?

They wouldnt be playing on PCs and heating up the planet if they cared about the environment , no. However the largest computer in the world (as of two years ago or so) is busily trying to predict climate changes as we speak

Source?

Well, the ozone hole is pretty much closed and lead contamination in blood is lower, the number of smog hazard days has been halved in the US, sulfur emissions from coal and diesel is lower and all vehicles sold in the US and EU are fitted with emissions reducing devices.

The only pollutant dramatically increasing is CO2, and that's coming from Asia. I could find sources for all of these if you want, but it will take a while.

The technology part is simply an examination of the emergence of alternative energy and the continuing decline in energy intensity which means less fossil fuels consumed per $1 of GDP.

Then what is up with all this talk about global warming is going to destroy the planet? Now, I'm kinda on the same side as you, I'm just curious why there is so many people saying we are destroying the planet. I don't think many environmentalists own computers though, so they wouldn't be able to explain it to me here, would they?

Global warming can't destroy the planet. However, it might be wise to try and reduce the things that cause it in order to prevent problems that will arise from an increase in global temperature, and CO2 emissions are part of that.

Plus, pollution is bad for the economy. It hurts productivity and diminishes the workforce, destroys land and capital, and lowers the value of property. The reason I support pollution control is because of its economic benefits, not because I believe we are destroying the planet.

We will not be able to damage it to the point of the planet being devoid of life, It'll just be to the point where we cannot survive in the pile of toxins that we have created, and if that does happen, I'm sure they will be plenty of organisms to thrive in our wastes and the planet will continue on supporting life. Once we are gone the planet will just end up purifying itself and moving on.


Right on. This is true. (http://qntm.org/destroy) It's also a very comforting thought. I just wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I knew there wouldn't be microorganisms thriving around somewhere after we're all gone.

Well, the ozone hole is pretty much closed and lead contamination in blood is lower, the number of smog hazard days has been halved in the US, sulfur emissions from coal and diesel is lower and all vehicles sold in the US and EU are fitted with emissions reducing devices.

The only pollutant dramatically increasing is CO2, and that's coming from Asia. I could find sources for all of these if you wish, but it will take a while.
The technology part is simply an examination of the emergence of alternative energy and the continuing decline in energy intensity which means less fossil fuels consumed per $1 of GDP.
These are not sources. The ozone layer was due to the ban of CFCs in the late eighties. Using a document that had wording which inspired the Kyoto Protocol. Some of the things you mention are good things indeed, reduced car emissions and lead contamination being lower in the blood (by the way, source on that?), but cannot be seen as actually being more than the first steps toward reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

This site has a graph which shows a rise in co2 over the past 40 years.
http://www.cet.edu/ete/modules/climate/GCcarbon1.html

I found a source on the lead blood levels thing:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm

That's good.

Killing the planet? Bah! Nothing we can do (up to and including firing off every NBC weapon in our combined arsenals) can eradicate life on Earth. We would wipe ourselves out, but the Earth would recover from the damage and the surviving life would adapt just as it has for the last 1/2 a billion years or so.

Mother Earth is a tough old bird, she'll outlast our growing pains. ;)

Well we're definitely screwing up the planet, for sure. :)

Now, I have heard the arguement again and again that we(humans) are killing the planet, but so far we have just knocked a few ecosystems out of balance. It would be incredibly difficult for us to actually destroy all life on our planet, seeing as we need other life to sustain our own. Personally I believe that we aren't killing it at all, we are just damaging it...We will not be able to damage it to the point of the planet being devoid of life, It'll just be to the point where we cannot survive in the pile of toxins that we have created, and if that does happen, I'm sure they will be plenty of organisms to thrive in our wastes and the planet will continue on supporting life. Once we are gone the planet will just end up purifying itself and moving on. The life on Earth has continued on through more devastating things than we could make, except nuclear holocaust, which I'm sure plenty of critters would find a way to survive.


Any thoughts?

I'm not even convinced we're 'damaging' it. Certainly it's possible for Earth's environment to shift outside of the ability to support human life, and I suppose it's feasible for mankind to actually destroy itself. Personally, I doubt mankind has the power to alter earth's environment that much. We're simply not that important. I think that only natural forces can eliminate humanity and that nothing short of an astronomical event could destroy all life on Earth.

Now, I have heard the arguement again and again that we(humans) are killing the planet, but so far we have just knocked a few ecosystems out of balance. It would be incredibly difficult for us to actually destroy all life on our planet, seeing as we need other life to sustain our own. Personally I believe that we aren't killing it at all, we are just damaging it...We will not be able to damage it to the point of the planet being devoid of life, It'll just be to the point where we cannot survive in the pile of toxins that we have created, and if that does happen, I'm sure they will be plenty of organisms to thrive in our wastes and the planet will continue on supporting life. Once we are gone the planet will just end up purifying itself and moving on. The life on Earth has continued on through more devastating things than we could make, except nuclear holocaust, which I'm sure plenty of critters would find a way to survive.

Any thoughts?
Somehow I doubt that we're ever going to wipe out all life on this pitful rock. In case you didn't notice, the planet is big. I mean really big. By the numbers it's a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. That's pretty damn big. Never believe anyone who tells you that we have enough firepower (in nukes or anything else) to blow up the world. They have no idea what they're talking about.

Now as far as wiping out all life: again, not within our grasp at the moment. We can wipe out every city and major population center and shink the human population to under a billion, I have no doubt about that, but there's no way to ensure complete death for every human ever. The Earth was here long before us, has been going just fine with us, and will be just fine when we're all long dead and the remnants of our once great civilizations are all buried and forgotten.

Since we got only 1 planet, it is in our best interests to be on the safe side even if we arent "killing" it....
And just what do you suggest we do? What is being safe? Life is inherently dangerous. The greater the risk the greater the reward I say.

Wouldn't it be an even better idea to get another one?

I think I saw a sale on the way home.
Do you have any idea just how difficult it is to get to the moon? The Apollo rockets had a monsterous mass ratio of 600. We were in a race at the time and all that mattered was getting there first so it was acceptable but these days we'd want to do things the smart way. That means a mass ratio of 4, at the absolute most 10 or you'd just be riding an burning totem pole to the stars in a coffin sized crew compartment. NPRs could get us to Venus or Mars in a reasonable amount of time and seriously cut the mass ratio but all the Venus probes were destroyed within minutes to hours of being on that death trap and Mars is a bit small, cold, and the air is pretty damn thin. And if you wanted to go to another system and look for planets, all I can say is good luck and good bye. The fastest man-made objects (the Voyager probes) only cruise at 17.5 m/s. That may sound pretty damn fast, and it is, but at that speed it'd take 74,000 years just to get to Proxima and another few centuries to get to Alpha.

Then what is up with all this talk about global warming is going to destroy the planet? Now, I'm kinda on the same side as you, I'm just curious why there is so many people saying we are destroying the planet. I don't think many environmentalists own computers though, so they wouldn't be able to explain it to me here, would they?
You see, people who have it really good get bored really easy. And when they get bored they start to protest. They rarely understand what it is that they protest, they just like to get out and be a part of the group.:p

Yes the planet is warming in some places. It's not the fault of humans though. How do I know this? Because NASA is seeing the same thing on Mars. Yes the average temp on the red planet is on the rise. This means one of two things: either people aren't to blame for it here on Earth or there are invisible people on Mars with invisible factories spewing ivisible pollution into the thin Martian atmosphere.

Is the Antarctic warming? Short answer: no. Long Answer: over 95% of Antarctica has been getting steadily colder since we started keeping records there. There is a peninsula that juts north (when your on the bottom of the world, there's nowhere to go but up) that has been experiencing some warming. The average temp in Antarctica is −85°C and −90°C in the winter months and only gets about 30°C higher in the sumer months. It never gets warm enoung for the ice there to melt.

Preaching doom and gloom gets attention and is great for selling books/movies, "solutions", and otherwise making money. If you tell everyone that the world will end and then offer them a way out they'll listen to every word you say and pay any amount for your garbage.

Many envirnomentalists used to push solar power, something I think has a lot of potential but still needs development. When that got old they decided to switch to wind and wave power. Both of these are at their peek now and not really worth it.

The problem with solar right now is that the best we can do is about 30% efficiency. That's only in labs, under favorable conditions, and those can cost anywhere from 10 to 100 times as much as their 8-12% counterparts. Once we can get the cost of the 30's down we could cover big sections of the Sahara with them and get lots of juice. Not enough to power the world or even a whole country but it'd still help.

The other power source that has largely been ignored by environmentalists is nuclear power. It seems every time people hear words like radiation or nuclear they think death. This is just plain stupid. These people are idiots and should be chucked into swimming pool-style reactors.:p So long as you treat radiation with the proper respect it can be very friendly.

Lots of people who oppose nuclear power like to point to Chernobyl. Problem is that's a bit of a strawman. Less than 60 people died at Chernobyl. According to the UN, less than 4000 have or ever will get sick and die from that fateful day at reactor 4. Out of 6 billion folks that's a pretty pathetic death toll for 'one of the worst disasters in human history'.

Nuclear power is extremely reliable, clean, and can be very safe. What people think is waste can be recycled into new fuel and what's left is either inert, albeit heavy and toxic metal, or the slowly radiating stuff used in nukes. And those can be sued to propel NPRs like the Orion Project.

Now onto the whole ozone layer hole thingy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Ozone_cycle.jpg
Ozone is 3 oxygen atoms. Normally oxygen will just bond with a single oxygen atom and go about its business floating there like the molecule it is. When O2 gets hit with sunlight it splits into 2 Os and they'll bond to just about anything even if that bond won't last. When Chlorine gets up there it grabs a couple of the free floating Os and drops them as an O2 and goes on to do it again and again. The thing is this O2 isn't shot down to the ground or out into space, it stays where it is and gets split again by the sun. So the ClFCs (because that's what they really should be called as Chlorine's symbol is Cl) only add a step to a never ending cycle. The only holes show up over the poles where the sun disapears for about 5-6 months every year. That's an awful long time to for O3 to break down by one method or another. When the sun comes back for 5-6 months of solid radiation, the ozone levels rise again. It's not the end product that keeps you from getting a sunburn, it's the process.

To be blunt, we're not that important.

Between me, Straughn and a few others, most of this bullshit has been answered on numerous threads. I couldn't even read most of it. But are you actually saying that CFCs wasn't the major cause for the hole in the ozone layer?

Between me, Straughn and a few others, most of this bullshit has been answered on numerous threads. I couldn't even read most of it. But are you actually saying that CFCs wasn't the major cause for the hole in the ozone layer?

Well sort of. They were a major cause but the Ozone layer thins every year during the winter anyways. The point I really wanted to drive home though was that it's not the end product but the process that keeps you from getting fried.

Well sort of. They were a major cause but the Ozone layer thins every year during the winter anyways. The point I really wanted to drive home though was that it's not the end product but the process that keeps you from getting fried.
I'm reading so many different articles, I can't get my thoughts straight....

This shows why CFCs were so bad better than I can explain right now...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Ozone/ozone_2.html

We're not going to kill the planet and we're not going to destroy ourselves. The planet is less polluted today than it was 40 years ago, and the trend of technology is towards greener and more efficient. We're going to do just fine...

Wealthier = Healthier

Now, I have heard the arguement again and again that we(humans) are killing the planet, but so far we have just knocked a few ecosystems out of balance. It would be incredibly difficult for us to actually destroy all life on our planet, seeing as we need other life to sustain our own. Personally I believe that we aren't killing it at all, we are just damaging it...We will not be able to damage it to the point of the planet being devoid of life, It'll just be to the point where we cannot survive in the pile of toxins that we have created, and if that does happen, I'm sure they will be plenty of organisms to thrive in our wastes and the planet will continue on supporting life. Once we are gone the planet will just end up purifying itself and moving on. The life on Earth has continued on through more devastating things than we could make, except nuclear holocaust, which I'm sure plenty of critters would find a way to survive.


Any thoughts?


Heheh cheers for the laff.

So you would not then agree that 'just damaging the planet' is a bad thing?

Yes we are killing the planet! We are draining the planet of all of the Mako, and thus the lifesource can't help heal the planet!

[/plays too much ff7]

Yes we are killing the planet! We are draining the planet of all of the Mako, and thus the lifesource can't help heal the planet!

[/plays too much ff7]
Actually those games are big on having ecological undertones. Er... overtones, sometimes.

Wealthier = Healthier

Very true. Productivity and technology growth are the best ways to fight pollution and other problems we have.

Very true. Productivity and technology growth are the best ways to fight pollution and other problems we have.
Except for the past 150 years.

I love the idea of destroying the planet.
It won't happen in my life so why the fuck do I care?

I love the idea of destroying the planet.
It won't happen in my life so why the fuck do I care?


And your kids, and your kids kids, you do not care about them?

I love the idea of destroying the planet.
It won't happen in my life so why the fuck do I care?
Your honesty is refreshing.

Now, I have heard the arguement again and again that we(humans) are killing the planet, but so far we have just knocked a few ecosystems out of balance. It would be incredibly difficult for us to actually destroy all life on our planet, seeing as we need other life to sustain our own. Personally I believe that we aren't killing it at all, we are just damaging it...We will not be able to damage it to the point of the planet being devoid of life, It'll just be to the point where we cannot survive in the pile of toxins that we have created, and if that does happen, I'm sure they will be plenty of organisms to thrive in our wastes and the planet will continue on supporting life. Once we are gone the planet will just end up purifying itself and moving on. The life on Earth has continued on through more devastating things than we could make, except nuclear holocaust, which I'm sure plenty of critters would find a way to survive.


Any thoughts?
we're injuring it very deeply and very slowly but - don't worry - modern societies will inevitably collapse long before Earth does. once societies crumble, the planet will start a long-term recovery. i.e. the survival of mankind is really not at risk (ignoring the always present possibility of a world nuclear war or a major asteroid hitting us of course.) but the survival of modern societies (as we know them) is...

Take a look at the technology in Port Arthur, Texas:

"Today, Port Arthur resembles nothing so much as a gated community in reverse. Sprawling refineries hide behind chain-link fences topped with razor wire and guards at the exits. Outside the fences, in the predominantly African-American neighborhood known as the Westside, streets are potholed, and every third or fourth house is empty and overgrown. All around Port Arthur, clapboard Victorians from a more prosperous era stand in want of paint and shutters, and tall weeds grow in the sidewalks of once-busy downtown avenues. Unemployment hovers around 13 percent, and the only buildings that see much activity appear to be City Hall and the offices of the local paper, the Port Arthur News.

Spend a few days in town and you'll find that the air always carries a throat-tickling mix of murky sea spray from the Gulf of Mexico and low levels of airborne sulfur, given off by the refineries. At night, above the dark shapes of enormous live oaks, the sky often glows orange with flares and the plants' thousands of lights; a constant, low electric hum from the refineries blankets the city like east Texas humidity. Port Arthur ranks high in just about every national pollution statistic -- the city and surrounding county are among the top 10 percent for major chemical releases; environmental cancer risk; levels of carcinogens; and levels of toxins that interfere with fetal development. According to a study by the Austin-based Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, more than 20,000 children in the area are exposed to toxins that can cause cancer, learning disabilities, and birth defects.

This, in other words, is the kind of place the federal government promised to start cleaning up a generation ago, when Congress passed a series of sweeping environmental laws including the Clean Air Act of 1970. The act never quite lived up to its name; many companies ignored its mandates, or learned to accept environmental fines as part of the cost of doing business. But in the 1990s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began cracking down on companies that were violating the law, threatening power plants and refineries, including some in Port Arthur, with costly lawsuits if they did not install state-of-the-art filters and scrubbers.

Now, the Bush administration has pulled back on that effort -- and, according to critics, demolished the foundation of the Clean Air Act itself. It has issued rules that relax key provisions of the act, allowing thousands of dirty power plants and other industrial sites to increase pollution without any Fines or penalties. Fifteen states have filed suit to block the changes; a national group of state and local air-pollution officials says the rules will result in "unchecked emissions increases that will degrade our air quality and endanger public health."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/09/ma_496_01.html

And your kids, and your kids kids, you do not care about them?

I don't have kids.
Even if I did, I still wouldn't care.
There is no way the planet will expire in the next five hundred years.

I can't even imagine how many generations it would take until the world ends, how far the family tree branches, etc. Hell, for all I know in that many centuries my family could be filled with pedophiles, rapists, murderers, robbers, drug dealers, etc.

I don't have kids.
Even if I did, I still wouldn't care.
There is no way the planet will expire in the next five hundred years.

I can't even imagine how many generations it would take until the world ends, how far the family tree branches, etc. Hell, for all I know in that many centuries my family could be filled with pedophiles, rapists, murderers, robbers, drug dealers, etc.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say....

I love the idea of destroying the planet.
It won't happen in my life so why the fuck do I care?
i wouldn't take that for granted, if i were you... do you know how some environmental scientists illustrate the collapse of the environment will happen? place a ruler on a desk or table so that a bit of it hangs over the edge. you push it outwards a little bit; nothing happens. you keep pushing it; nothing happens. you give it another push and - suddenly - the ruler falls. i.e. you won't get much more warning than you are already getting:

every year, the amazon forest has been loosing an area the size of belgium. every year they are discovering that large chunks of the deforested soil becomes useless for agriculture, without the forest... because the forest is not there to absorb the water and transpire it back to the atmosphere, rainwater is flooding farmland and running off into the deep soil or the ocean.

some 75 per cent of farmland on the african continent is severely degraded and rapidly losing the basic soil nutrients needed to grow crops.

more than half of the major world's rivers are seriously polluted and exausted.

between 2025 and 2050, 2/3 of the world's population may be living in water stressed countries (where consumption is 10% over renewable resources)...

by 2025, the global population may reach 8 billion (from the current 6.5). by 2050 it may reach 9 billion.

all this will mean less food and less water for more and more people, which means more war. the difference being that, in the future, we won't be fighting wars for oil. we will be fighting them for water and food.

so, unless you are about 50 years old now or you are not planning to have kids ever, you should have many reasons to worry about...

i wouldn't take that for granted, if i were you... do you know how some environmental scientists illustrate the collapse of the environment will happen? place a ruler on a desk or table so that a bit of it hangs over the edge. you push it outwards a little bit; nothing happens. you keep pushing it; nothing happens. you give it another push and - suddenly - the ruler falls. i.e. you won't get much more warning than you are already getting:

every year, the amazon forest has been loosing an area the size of belgium. every year they are discovering that large chunks of the deforested soil becomes useless for agriculture, without the forest... because the forest is not there to absorb the water and transpire it back to the atmosphere, rainwater is flooding farmland and running off into the deep soil or the ocean.

some 75 per cent of farmland on the african continent is severely degraded and rapidly losing the basic soil nutrients needed to grow crops.

more than half of the major world's rivers are seriously polluted and exausted.

between 2025 and 2050, 2/3 of the world's population may be living in water stressed countries (where consumption is 10% over renewable resources)...

by 2025, the global population may reach 8 billion (from the current 6.5). by 2050 it may reach 9 billion.

all this will mean less food and less water for more and more people, which means more war. the difference being that, in the future, we won't be fighting wars for oil. we will be fighting them for water and food.

so, unless you are about 50 years old now and you are not planning to ever have kids, you should have many reasons to worry about...

That seems rather paranoid.
Wars will always be fought.
I live in Canada, water will not be a problem for us anytime soon.

That seems rather paranoid.
Wars will always be fought.
I live in Canada, water will not be a problem for us anytime soon.
Sounds like you'd be a target. How are the bears up there, by the way?

Sounds like you'd be a target. How are the bears up there, by the way?

We might be a target but America would step in and call us their bitch as they began looting our water supplies. Anyone else who tries to come in, they would deal with.

We might be a target but America would step in and call us their bitch as they began looting our water supplies. Anyone else who tries to come in, they would deal with.
This turning into a roleplaying game...

That seems rather paranoid.
Wars will always be fought.
I live in Canada, water will not be a problem for us anytime soon.
paranoid? i suggest you start reading environmental information from the united nations environmental program. i've been researching it for the last 5 years for professional reasons. i don't know if you produce all the food you consume so i can't talk specifically about your country. you are definitely in one of the best places to be, but that doesn't offer you 100% guarantee that you won't feel any impact on your lifestyle.

unless canada builds a wall around itself and becomes economically independent from the rest of the world, i very much doubt that the impending crisis won't hit you, one way or another. if the weather continues going crazy as it is, crop failures will cause increasing problems all over the world. you do realise crops need reasonably stable weather, don't you?

put it this way, whatever the case is and assuming it's business as usual, the world won't get any better than it is right now. much by the contrary.

unless canada builds a wall around itself and becomes economically independent from the rest of the world, i very much doubt that the impending crisis won't hit you, one way or another. if the weather continues going crazy as it is, crop failures will cause increasing problems all over the world. you do realise crops need reasonably stable weather, don't you?

put it this way, whatever the case is and assuming it's business as usual, the world won't get any better than it is right now. much by the contrary.

Canada has become economically independent before, as has America. However, that was one of the leading causes to the Great Depression.

Crops need stable weather?
Well guess what, the weather has been a tad 'unstable' for the past few billion years on Earth.

Canada has become economically independent before, as has America. However, that was one of the leading causes to the Great Depression.

Crops need stable weather?
Well guess what, the weather has been a tad 'unstable' for the past few billion years on Earth.
Why are you so against actually looking at the plethora of information on global warming? Why not just check out Real Climate? They are not alarmist and they have better and more reliable information than anyone on NS can give you in offhanded posts.

One of us! One of us! One of us!

Canada has become economically independent before, as has America. However, that was one of the leading causes to the Great Depression.
well... you may want to get ready for another great depression then...
Crops need stable weather?
Well guess what, the weather has been a tad 'unstable' for the past few billion years on Earth.
er... i'm talking about anual cycles. i don't think crops work on billion year cycles, unless you are talking of planting a super giant potato...

er... i'm talking about anual cycles. i don't think crops work on billion year cycles, unless you are talking of planting a super giant potato...

I guess farmers have never experienced flooding, insect swarming, freezing winters or droughts before the 21st Century's "Global Warming"?

One of us! One of us! One of us!
Please don't double post. It makes you look like a DISEASED BABOON!

Please don't double post. It makes you look like a DISEASED BABOON!
Just because my ass is neon red, doesn't mean I have to take these insults.

Why are you so against actually looking at the plethora of information on global warming? Why not just check out Real Climate? They are not alarmist and they have better and more reliable information than anyone on NS can give you in offhanded posts.
plus that... most of the information i provided has anything to do with global warming. they are independent problems...

the only one you can associate to GW is weather going mental and i do believe that (weather going mental) is no longer theory either. unless someone can explain why hail fell in southern europe in june (summer) this year. in one day only, 80% of the portuguese grape crops were left under threat of being lost. wine is a major agricultural export in portugal... i believe canada produces it as well...

I guess farmers have never experienced flooding, insect swarming, freezing winters or droughts before the 21st Century's "Global Warming"?
not on a world wide scale, with 8-9 billion people to feed... no.

not on a world wide scale, with 8-9 billion people to feed... no.
There's only 6 billion and growth slows when technology advances so the more we pull 3rd world countries out of the dumps the less they'll pollute and their population growth will slow.

the only one you can associate to GW is weather going mental and i do believe that (weather going mental) is no longer theory either. unless someone can explain why hail fell in southern europe in june (summer) this year. in one day only, 80% of the portuguese grape crops were left under threat of being lost. wine is a major agricultural export in portugal... i believe canada produces it as well...
Well the weather hasn't been more extreme if that's what you mean. You see there's this thing that a local radio station likes to do every afternoon when they give the weather. They tell you the records for that day and when they were set and nearly all the record highs in MN during the spring and summer were set back in the 1930's and nearly every last one is still standing. "More proof of abosultely nothing" as they sometimes say.

Well I'm bored, but at least things can't get any worse. This isn’t irony. This is statistically sound.

And don't double post. It makes you look stupid. Moron.

There's only 6 billion and growth slows when technology advances so the more we pull 3rd world countries out of the dumps the less they'll pollute and their population growth will slow.

Well I'm bored, but at least things can't get any worse. This isn’t irony. This is statistically sound.

And don't double post. It makes you look stupid. Moron.
I think Assis is referring to this http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm.

And nothing makes a person look dumber than ignorance.

Just wanted to say, I just made the worst cup of coffee in the history of mankind. But I drink it anyway. This is my commitment to caffeine.

Now, the Bush administration has pulled back on that effort -- and, according to critics, demolished the foundation of the Clean Air Act itself. It has issued rules that relax key provisions of the act, allowing thousands of dirty power plants and other industrial sites to increase pollution without any Fines or penalties. Fifteen states have filed suit to block the changes; a national group of state and local air-pollution officials says the rules will result in "unchecked emissions increases that will degrade our air quality and endanger public health."

Ironically, Bush was simply responding to the demands of the American people.

In the United States, cheap gasoline is more important than the environment; after all, the problems are being dumped on some other poor or unimportant community so it doesn't matter! People have the mindset that their responsbility stops at the gas pump or the socket in the wall, and as long as the gas is cheap and the electricity abundant they couldn't care less how many people are killed in Nigeria or poisoned in Port Arthur.

Ironically, Bush was simply responding to the demands of the American people.

In the United States, cheap gasoline is more important than the environment; after all, the problems are being dumped on some other poor or unimportant community so it doesn't matter! People have the mindset that their responsbility stops at the gas pump or the socket in the wall, and as long as the gas is cheap and the electricity abundant they couldn't care less how many people are killed in Nigeria or poisoned in Port Arthur.
I don't think that they don't care, I think it's just easier to watch an old rerun of Friends than to think about it when the topic comes up.

Except for the past 150 years.

Are you insane? Ambient pollutant levels have collapsed in the developed world over the past 150 years.

I don't think that they don't care, I think it's just easier to watch an old rerun of Friends than to think about it when the topic comes up.

That means they don't care.

Are you insane? Ambient pollutant levels have collapsed in the developed world over the past 150 years.
Real improvement began about 30 years ago but it is still not where we need to be.

That means they don't care.
I agree to some extent but I think it's more difficult than that. If you can look the other way from a problem and nothing happens to you directly and instantly for ignoring it, most people will look the other way.

There's only 6 billion and growth slows when technology advances so the more we pull 3rd world countries out of the dumps the less they'll pollute and their population growth will slow.
read my previous posts and you'll understand that we've been talking about projections for 2025 and 2050.
Well the weather hasn't been more extreme if that's what you mean. You see there's this thing that a local radio station likes to do every afternoon when they give the weather. They tell you the records for that day and when they were set and nearly all the record highs in MN during the spring and summer were set back in the 1930's and nearly every last one is still standing. "More proof of abosultely nothing" as they sometimes say.
read my previous posts and you'll understand that we've been talking about projections for 2025 and 2050.
Well I'm bored, but at least things can't get any worse. This isn’t irony. This is statistically sound.

And don't double post. It makes you look stupid. Moron.
aaahhh always the intelligent, intellectual and most adult and enlightening name-calling... where exactly is the double post please? i only see two posts with different data...

Then what is up with all this talk about global warming is going to destroy the planet? Now, I'm kinda on the same side as you, I'm just curious why there is so many people saying we are destroying the planet. I don't think many environmentalists own computers though, so they wouldn't be able to explain it to me here, would they?
Have you even noticed the unusually stormy weather, the increased number of hurricanes, or increased number of floods??? Yeah global warming is a myth (note last bit is sarcasm)

I agree to some extent but I think it's more difficult than that. If you can look the other way from a problem and nothing happens to you directly and instantly for ignoring it, most people will look the other way.

If they're willing to look away, they don't care.

Either they care or they don't. There's no middle ground.

Just wanted to say, I just made the worst cup of coffee in the history of mankind. But I drink it anyway. This is my commitment to caffeine.
just add more sugar.... :D

If they're willing to look away, they don't care.

Either they care or they don't. There's no middle ground.
Well, in the real world you don't get a choice:
A: You can watch Friends.
B: You can care about the world.

Unfortunately, there are numerous other factors involved. I think it's important to stress just how important Climate Change is so that people do take notice.

What have you done for orphans of the world today? If you did nothing does that mean that you don't care about orphans?

Real improvement began about 30 years ago but it is still not where we need to be.
plus, a lot of polutants stay around for very long periods of time. some decades, others centuries or even thousands of years. the fact that we're cutting back does not mean polutant accumulation levels are going down. just means we're accumulating at a slower pace but we're still accumulating.

just add more sugar.... :D
My spoon is sticking up.

My spoon is sticking up.
ROFL that bad??? heheheheh :D

We're not going to kill the planet and we're not going to destroy ourselves. The planet is less polluted today than it was 40 years ago, and the trend of technology is towards greener and more efficient. We're going to do just fine...


ROFL!! :rolleyes:
I guess China and India switched to Solar Power within 40 years....

ROFL that bad??? heheheheh :D
Actually the second cup was better. Makes me wonder if the cat knocked something into the first...

ROFL!! :rolleyes:
I guess China and India switched to Solar Power within 40 years....

Waste and pollution are inefficient. They will improve their efficiency in order to produce more.

Waste and pollution are inefficient. They will improve their efficiency in order to produce more.
Unless it costs them more money to change the way they've always done things.

Waste and pollution are inefficient. They will improve their efficiency in order to produce more.

So why is the USA still #1 polluter of the world? Producing more isnt an enough incentive to be "green".

Well, in the real world you don't get a choice:
A: You can watch Friends.
B: You can care about the world.

Unfortunately, there are numerous other factors involved. I think it's important to stress just how important Climate Change is so that people do take notice.

What have you done for orphans of the world today? If you did nothing does that mean that you don't care about orphans?

Short answer; yes, with an if.

Long answer; no, with a but.

Actually the second cup was better. Makes me wonder if the cat knocked something into the first...
or into the second.... :D

Now, I have heard the arguement again and again that we(humans) are killing the planet, but so far we have just knocked a few ecosystems out of balance. It would be incredibly difficult for us to actually destroy all life on our planet, seeing as we need other life to sustain our own. Personally I believe that we aren't killing it at all, we are just damaging it...We will not be able to damage it to the point of the planet being devoid of life, It'll just be to the point where we cannot survive in the pile of toxins that we have created, and if that does happen, I'm sure they will be plenty of organisms to thrive in our wastes and the planet will continue on supporting life. Once we are gone the planet will just end up purifying itself and moving on. The life on Earth has continued on through more devastating things than we could make, except nuclear holocaust, which I'm sure plenty of critters would find a way to survive.


Any thoughts?
Human beings are not capable of destroying this planet (yet). However, we are perfectly capable of rendering this planet unable to support human life, and we're well on our way to accomplishing this.

Human beings are not capable of destroying this planet (yet). However, we are perfectly capable of rendering this planet unable to support human life, and we're well on our way to accomplishing this.

Humanity is kicking its own ass, as always.

Does anyone watch the news? the whole gobal warming fight is over WE are causing it, as humans get more advanced we use up more reasources. due to the fact we only have this one to live on it, makes it important to take care of.

Does anyone watch the news? the whole gobal warming fight is over WE are causing it, as humans get more advanced we use up more reasources. due to the fact we only have this one to live on it, makes it important to take care of.
If it bleeds, it leads. Bad news sells.

Anchors aren't scientists, they read from a script. Actors aren't scinetists, they read from a script. Politicians aren't scientists, they read from a script. Lobbyists are not scientists. Environmentalists are not scientists. Businessmen are not scientists. Only scientists are scientists. Scientists get hired by lobbyists to advance special agenda. When you look for something hard enough, you'll find in even if it's not really there. Remember all the songs that would have devil worship if you played them backwards? Complete BS.

When I read your post I immediately thought of this:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20060310.jpg
You have no idea how your iPod works or basic chemistry or anything about geography or stellar cartography or how to turn a microwave oven into a weapon. So long as it looks good and appears to work you're happy. People like you make me sick. Not because you disgust me with your ignorance, but because I have an incredibly weak immune system and live in a plastic bubble.

And when/more like if you ever make it to college you'll probably major in philosophy. Philosophy majors are the worst. Majoring in ceramics is almost as bad.

Does anyone watch the news? the whole gobal warming fight is over WE are causing it, as humans get more advanced we use up more reasources. due to the fact we only have this one to live on it, makes it important to take care of.

And you are apparently happy to be lead like a little puppy on a leash.

And you are apparently happy to be lead like a little puppy on a leash.

In fairness, that's how the world works.

And you are apparently happy to be lead like a little puppy on a leash.
And whose puppy are you?

I guess China and India switched to Solar Power within 40 years....

Actually, India and China are the two fastest growing markets in the world for alternative energy. They're going to overtake the US and Europe in a few years with their current growth rates in solar and wind power...they're committed to it as a real source of energy, because they know that their economies cannot be supported by imported fossil fuels.

You would think that Australia would be big on alternative energy. They have tremendous amounts of open land that receive some of the highest amounts of solar exposure on the planet. They could also make excellent use of tidal power.

You would think that Australia would be big on alternative energy. They have tremendous amounts of open land that receive some of the highest amounts of solar exposure on the planet. They could also make excellent use of tidal power.
From what I understand, they're getting bigger on it.

Since we got only 1 planet, it is in our best interests to be on the safe side even if we arent "killing" it....

I'd wager Pascal would agree with you.

In fairness, that's how the world works.

And those puppies should be ashamed of themselves.

And whose puppy are you?

I don't get lead anywhere. I shan't move from my uncertainty until I'm thoroughly convinced.

And those puppies should be ashamed of themselves.



I don't get lead anywhere. I shan't move from my uncertainty until I'm thoroughly convinced.
You don't move much, do you?

You don't move much, do you?

Gaia is dying and humanity is killing Her.

Humans lack the power to "kill" the planet by a long shot. Even if we detonated every nuclear weapon we have it wouldn't kill the planet. Hell wouldn't even make a serious dent.

Gaia is dying and humanity is killing Her.

These lyrics seem appropriate;


Denying the lying
A million children fighting
For lives in strife
For hope beyond the horizon

A dead world
A dark path
Not even crossroads to choose from
All the blood red carpets before me
Behold this fair creation of God

My only wish to leave behind
All the days of the earth
An everyday hell of my kingdom come

The first rock thrown again
Welcome to hell, little Saint
Mother Gaia in slaughter
Welcome to paradise, soldier

My first cry neverending
All life is to fear for life
You fool, you wanderer
You challenged the gods and lost

Save yourself a penny for the ferryman
Save yourself and let them suffer
In hope
In love
This world ain't ready for The Ark

Save yourself a penny for the ferryman
Save yourself and let them suffer
In hope
In love
Mankind works in mysterious ways

Welcome Down
To my
Planet Hell

Save yourself a penny for the ferryman
Save yourself and let them suffer
In hope
In love
This world ain't ready for The Ark

Save yourself a penny for the ferryman
Save yourself and let them suffer
In hope
In love
Mankind works in mysterious ways

You would think that Australia would be big on alternative energy. They have tremendous amounts of open land that receive some of the highest amounts of solar exposure on the planet. They could also make excellent use of tidal power.

Australia has a ton of natural gas and a decent amount of oil, and they have a huge market in China just to the north of them; they're going to be dependent on fossil fuels until the natural gas and oil start to run out, but for now they stand to benefit too much from LNG exports to pursue alternative energy.

I guess it's like someone in the tobacco industry taking up smoking to support their product?

Humans lack the power to "kill" the planet by a long shot. Even if we detonated every nuclear weapon we have it wouldn't kill the planet. Hell wouldn't even make a serious dent.

It sounds like you listen to too much racist/sexist radio talk shows, most of which would like to see Gaia dead just because She is a threat to your Christian God. But destroying Gaia is not the answer.

I like the song that was posted. :) ;)

It sounds like you listen to too much racist/sexist radio talk shows, most of which would like to see Gaia dead just because She is a threat to your Christian God. But destroying Gaia is not the answer.

I like the song that was posted. :) ;)


Athiest.

Gaia is dying and humanity is killing Her.
You really go for that Gaia stuff? Ever read Lovelock? It seems a bit too much for me. I can see humanity going down and then the Earth slowly repairing itself but I can't see the Earth actually dying without anything short of Death Star.