NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/warming/

The CS monitor is putting the opinions of those who give them on their site. I thought a few people here would be interested enough to have a say about global warming.

We should do everything we can to stop it, or, if that's not possible, minimize it.

I agree.

We should do everything we can to stop it, or, if that's not possible, minimize it.

just make it more expensive to pollute through taxing and scientific research and development

we could also try to control our impact on the environment as a whole not just when it costs money but I'm not expecting miracles

edit: who wants to go find my comment? (and thus uncover horrible facts about where I live and my name :eek:)

just make it more expensive to pollute through taxing and scientific research and development

we could also try to control our impact on the environment as a whole not just when it costs money but I'm not expecting miracles

Its sad that we have to bribe the populace to keep them from destroying the planet, we[the human race] just don't care for the future anymore. :(

The idea to make it expensive to pollute is a good one don't get me wrong.

Let the free market handle it. If people desire to embark upon a mad crusade to rid the world of every single mole of carbon dioxide, let them. Rational people, who realize that global warming is nothing more than an alarmist hoax, can continue to pollute as they desire. In the 70s, the big scare was global cooling; now, it's global warming. Irony, anyone? Don't let manipulated data tell you how to live your life; that would go contrary to freedom. Those who want to limit your freedoms to do as you wish under the guise of global warming are no different than all others who wish to erode your rights. Keep this country free -- don't bow in to this transparent ploy to curb your rights.

My intrawebs were down the other day, so I had to break out the Old School porn. Found an article in a 70s issue of Playboy about the coming Ice Age. I'm not convinced we have enough baseline data to attribute cause and effect to climate change.

My intrawebs were down the other day, so I had to break out the Old School porn. Found an article in a 70s issue of Playboy about the coming Ice Age. I'm not convinced we have enough baseline data to attribute cause and effect to climate change.

70's Playboys? Wow, that might be a little too Old School...

70's Playboys? Wow, that might be a little too Old School...

Debra Jo Fondren 4tehwin!

Let the free market handle it. If people desire to embark upon a mad crusade to rid the world of every single mole of carbon dioxide, let them. Rational people, who realize that global warming is nothing more than an alarmist hoax, can continue to pollute as they desire. In the 70s, the big scare was global cooling; now, it's global warming. Irony, anyone? Don't let manipulated data tell you how to live your life; that would go contrary to freedom. Those who want to limit your freedoms to do as you wish under the guise of global warming are no different than all others who wish to erode your rights. Keep this country free -- don't bow in to this transparent ploy to curb your rights.

Ahhh yes, the freedom to blast poisons in the air, breath them and force others to breath them, the freedom to destroy the ecosystem making it harder and harder to get food. Oh and lets not forget the freedom to destroy the planet! :eek: Nearly forgot about that!

Trust me, I had to live in a country [Philippines] plagued by pollution for three months, they lived their lives and polluted all they wanted (they wanted to all the time) and there was nothing free about it. In the Philippines the main cause of death is lung cancer. You should visit that paradise sometime, where the water is all green and slimy from industrial waste, the smog is pervasive and the sewage goes right into the harbor and possibly the beaches. Enjoy the land where people pollute freely.

Rational people, who realize that global warming is nothing more than an alarmist hoax, can continue to pollute as they desire. In the 70s, the big scare was global cooling; now, it's global warming. Irony, anyone?

actually scientists still shit there pants from global cooling (there was a massive famine because of it hence why we made a huge effort to curb it)

now however we realize that we have to control all of our emissions (and no you can't do both and hope it will just cancel out)

Don't let manipulated data tell you how to live your life; that would go contrary to freedom.

freedom to destroy the planet? no thanks I'd rather live in a rational society that realizes we live on a planet

I feel it is too cold so I support global warming.

Ahhh yes, the freedom to blast poisons in the air, breath them and force others to breath them, the freedom to destroy the ecosystem making it harder and harder to get food. Oh and lets not forget the freedom to destroy the planet! :eek: Nearly forgot about that!

Trust me, I had to live in a country [Philippines] plagued by pollution for three months, they lived their lives and polluted all they wanted (they wanted to all the time) and there was nothing free about it. In the Philippines the main cause of death is lung cancer. You should visit that paradise sometime, where the water is all green and slimy from industrial waste, the smog is pervasive and the sewage goes right into the harbor and possibly the beaches. Enjoy the land where people pollute freely.

The real problem is assigning true cost to production. "Free market" does not imply "free to pollute."

Trust me, I had to live in a country [Philippines] plagued by pollution for three months, they lived their lives and polluted all they wanted (they wanted to all the time) and there was nothing free about it. In the Philippines the main cause of death is lung cancer. You should visit that paradise sometime, where the water is all green and slimy from industrial waste, the smog is pervasive and the sewage goes right into the harbor and possibly the beaches. Enjoy the land where people pollute freely.

Ah, but there is a difference. It is illegal to shroud a man in a carcinogen, as it is a toxic substance which will likely lead to his early demise. Similarly, industrial run-off into streams and the water system can be potentially lethal. These activities impact others detrimentally and need to be somehow monitored. However, not a single death can be ascribed to global warming. Thus, there must be absolutely no legislation whatsoever passed to restrict the freedoms of the masses in the vain hopes of curing an imagined affliction. That said, if pollution is proven to be unhealthy, the amount of pollution one is allowed to emit may be regulated, and safeguards installed, as long as those measures are not taken because of an irrational fear of an innocuous activity.

However, not a single death can be ascribed to global warming.

What about the deaths due to the rapid growth of hemorrhagic dengue fever (and other diseases) in tropical regions?

It has resurged because climate change is prolonging the wet, humid conditions that favor the disease carrying mosquitoes that transmit it to humans. In some places, there really isn't a dry season capable of keeping these populations in line.

However, not a single death can be ascribed to global warming.

you weren't in France during 2003 then or happen to be noticing the changing patterns of the monsoons (both in increased flooding and areas loosing rain)

for the record the monsoons support the food of billions of people what does this tell you?

So you have evidence of global warming data being manipulated?

Let the free market handle it. If people desire to embark upon a mad crusade to rid the world of every single mole of carbon dioxide, let them. Rational people, who realize that global warming is nothing more than an alarmist hoax, can continue to pollute as they desire. In the 70s, the big scare was global cooling; now, it's global warming. Irony, anyone? Don't let manipulated data tell you how to live your life; that would go contrary to freedom. Those who want to limit your freedoms to do as you wish under the guise of global warming are no different than all others who wish to erode your rights. Keep this country free -- don't bow in to this transparent ploy to curb your rights.

There's a reason people are starting to use the term "global climate change" instead of "global warming." Global warming is a misnomer of sorts, as some places are indeed cooling. Globally, the trend is to warming, however.

Science improves with every day. Is it so hard to understand that we know more now than we did in the 70s? Science still isn't perfect, but I certainly lend it more creedence than those that pointedly reject global warming based purely on financial reasons. It's rare enough that a rabid free marketer will admit to global warming, because that might indict current business practices. And that would just be terrible.

Who cares if we destroy the planet, as long as we're still rich on that last day on earth?

Who cares if we destroy the planet, as long as we're still rich on that last day on earth?

actually big business has been noting that saving the planet can be profitable (just like when king pin helped spiderman:eek::p)

the idea that big business tears down the Amazon rain forest and such is in fact untrue (its actually poor farming communities)

What about the deaths due to the rapid growth of hemorrhagic dengue fever (and other diseases) in tropical regions?

It has resurged because climate change is prolonging the wet, humid conditions that favor the disease carrying mosquitoes that transmit it to humans. In some places, there really isn't a dry season capable of keeping these populations in line.

There is only speculation that human activities led to the climate change that produced the results you described. Every single other major shift in the climate experienced by the earth is not attributable to man; what makes this one so special? There are normal fluctuations in average temperatures in the course of decades, centuries, millenia, etc.; there have been hot periods and cold periods in Earth's history. Just because that trend has not magically stopped with the arrival of man does not mean we should panic and believe the sky is falling; it's a perfectly normal phenomenon, albeit harmful.

So you have evidence of global warming data being manipulated?

Look at the "hockey stick" graphs used to illustrate the "huge" upswing of a few degrees Celsius in the average temperature. They conveniently cut out the Medieval Warm Period and the previous ice age, when the temperature fluctuations were much more pronounced than they are now.

There is only speculation that human activities led to the climate change that produced the results you described. Every single other major shift in the climate experienced by the earth is not attributable to man; what makes this one so special?

But if it has happened only in recent years when climate change appears to be accelerating and there is strong causal evidence that man is affecting this trend by worsening it, you can say with fairly high confidence that mankind is involved in these changes.

There are normal fluctuations in average temperatures in the course of decades, centuries, millenia, etc.; there have been hot periods and cold periods in Earth's history. Just because that trend has not magically stopped with the arrival of man does not mean we should panic and believe the sky is falling; it's a perfectly normal phenomenon, albeit harmful.

Yes, but this warming trend lines up with the start of the Industrial Revolution and the CO2 count in the atmosphere has skyrocketed to levels higher than any known natural cycle in that timeframe. Changes that have taken thousands of years in previous cycles have happened in a fraction of that during the era of man-made CO2 emissions.

There's strong causal evidence that mankind is involved in this. If we do nothing, we will most likely lose far more than if we do something.

Every single other major shift in the climate experienced by the earth is not attributable to man; what makes this one so special?

because we are pumping tons more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that microorganisms can no longer handle in the past increased volcanic activity caused problems with the climate now this delicate system that tends to mess up anyway is having spanners throw in it by us

for a random fact you owe your life to tiny sea creatures who make shells out of carbon course we are also messing up the habitats where they live...

There are normal fluctuations in average temperatures in the course of decades, centuries, millenia, etc.; there have been hot periods and cold periods in Earth's history. Just because that trend has not magically stopped with the arrival of man does not mean we should panic and believe the sky is falling; it's a perfectly normal phenomenon, albeit harmful.

yes lets increase a destructive cycle and forget the fact that the Earth is just about not turning into Venus (a fact is if we the temperature in some parts increases by 5 degrees that means game over there is nothing that can be done to save life let alone are species temperatures go up and up by themselves)

Look at the "hockey stick" graphs used to illustrate the "huge" upswing of a few degrees Celsius in the average temperature. They conveniently cut out the Medieval Warm Period and the previous ice age, when the temperature fluctuations were much more pronounced than they are now.

your arguments are tired and overused. you demostrated your ignorance in your first post in this thread by quibbling the global warming/cooling 'discrepancy'. anything you've added are arguments that haven't been used for ages. go do your homework and come back when you've read some current research.

But if it has happened only in recent years when climate change appears to be accelerating and there is strong causal evidence that man is affecting this trend by worsening it, you can say with fairly high confidence that mankind is involved in these changes.



Yes, but this warming trend lines up with the start of the Industrial Revolution and the CO2 count in the atmosphere has skyrocketed to levels higher than any known natural cycle in that timeframe.

There's strong causal evidence that mankind is involved in this. If we do nothing, we will most likely lose far more than if we do something.

Unless what we do proves more harmful still. The mongooses (mongeese?) in Hawaii come to mind . . .

Unless what we do proves more harmful still. The mongooses (mongeese?) in Hawaii come to mind . . .

Well, yeah. But I don't think cutting back on the amount of fossil fuels we consume, mandating energy efficiency, or things like that are going to be more harmful. I mean, there are clean and viable alternatives to all of the fossil fuels in use today, and as the technology improves it will be possible to displace a bigger and bigger share of them until we no longer need them.

Look at the "hockey stick" graphs used to illustrate the "huge" upswing of a few degrees Celsius in the average temperature.

every fraction you increase the temperature by billions of important ecosystems collapse (mostly the bacterial groups which more of less keep the planet from going ape shit and killing us all with 'normal' air) and the closer the Earth gets to runaway warming

They conveniently cut out the Medieval Warm Period and the previous ice age, when the temperature fluctuations were much more pronounced than they are now.

the medieval warm period was due to increased solar activity (which BTW never got the temperature even close to the current http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)

the previous ice age (I presume your not referring to the 'little ice age') was caused by solar activity also though that was the Earth orbit going haywire which is very rare)

Another poster has said this better,

It shouldn't be a debate about global warming, it should be about pollution and the harm to human health.

Concentrating on global warming allows people to believe that it's just environmentalists trying to stop big business.

We should take care of the environment because it's killing us not to.

Well, yeah. But I don't think cutting back on the amount of fossil fuels we consume, mandating energy efficiency, or things like that are going to be more harmful. I mean, there are clean and viable alternatives to all of the fossil fuels in use today, and as the technology improves it will be possible to displace a bigger and bigger share of them until we no longer need them.

Actually, those things make sense in terms of sustainable economies, and should be pursued regardless. It would be nice to take all the "global climate" blah blah out of the conversation.

why couldnt god make global warming an astroid instead least we would have to listen to these green party bullshit.

p.s. global warming is just another thing that we should be all hopped up about enyone remeber new years 1999 somthing happened here didnt it.

why couldnt god make global warming an astroid instead least we would have to listen to these green party bullshit.

p.s. global warming is just another thing that we should be all hopped up about enyone remeber new years 1999 somthing happened here didnt it.

Y2K didn't cause a massive computer failure across the globe because we prepared for it, and assessed the threat realistically. We are merely sitting back and passively allowing Global Climate Change to continue.

And, as an economically Conservative Democrat, I hardly qualify as a Green. Anthropocentric Environmentalism is the only sustainable mindset.

Y2K didn't cause a massive computer failure across the globe because we prepared for it, and assessed the threat realistically. We are merely sitting back and passively allowing Global Climate Change to continue.

And, as an economically Conservative Democrat, I hardly qualify as a Green. Anthropocentric Environmentalism is the only sustainable mindset.

Indeed. I remember 1999 quite well-People were going apeshit trying to make sure that every possible problem was figured out, and upgraded vital systems to ensure that the crash didn't happen.

Anthropocentric Environmentalism is the only sustainable mindset.

in addition to just being generally untenable, anthropocentrism is what got us into this mess in the first place. tacking on environmentalism to it won't work, as it will either have to shift to some non-anthropocentric ethic if it seriously intends to be environmentalist, or progressively surrender any claim on environmentalism as we come up with technological replacements for 'ecosystem services'.

in addition to just being generally untenable, anthropocentrism is what got us into this mess in the first place. tacking on environmentalism to it won't work, as it will either have to shift to some non-anthropocentric ethic if it seriously intends to be environmentalist, or progressively surrender any claim on environmentalism as we come up with technological replacements for 'ecosystem services'.

Anthropocentrism is the only healthy mindset for a member of the species Homo Sapiens to take. We seek the perpetuation of our species. This is not merely because of the evolutionary imperitive, but because of the need to be protected. If I wish to be protected under the social contract, I must be willing to protect.

Environmentalism is, for the time-being, in no conflict with Anthropocentrism. In fact, you cannot have the second without having the first, and be living in the real world. We are a part of the natural environment, and we must therefore ensure that it does not become unlivable. The primary goals of modern environmentalists, to protect genetic diversity, to protect natural resourcese, to slow Global Climate Change, to seek an energy alternative, to cease putting carcinogens on our food. These are all Anthropocentric in their nature. Morever, there is a service that nature provides that we need: evolutionary pressure. So long as their are species adapting to their environment, and so long as we must adapt, we are possessed both of the genetic resources needed for continued medical growth and of the skill set needed to survive disasters. If genetic pressure dies away, as it will if the environment collapses, we, humans will not long survive it.

However, I do not subscribe to the belief that non-human animals are of the same value as human animals, and I believe that it is the height of silly, moralistic nonsense supported by little but rabid dogma that depends on emotional appeals to irrational people.

Anthropocentrism is the only healthy mindset for a member of the species Homo Sapiens to take.

not unless you mean something radically different by it than i do.

anthropocentrism quite literally posits the moral neutrality (and possibly the occasional outright goodness) of kicking puppies.

We seek the perpetuation of our species. This is not merely because of the evolutionary imperitive, but because of the need to be protected. If I wish to be protected under the social contract, I must be willing to protect.

Environmentalism is, for the time-being, in no conflict with Anthropocentrism. In fact, you cannot have the second without having the first, and be living in the real world. We are a part of the natural environment, and we must therefore ensure that it does not become unlivable.

is there some fundamental reason why we will be unable to survive through the use of an entirely domesticated ecosystem? do we need a species of beetle that lives in a 6 square mile patch of rainforest in brazil?

we are not in much danger from either climate change or the current mass extinction event - we are incredibly successful generalists, we'll be here with the rats and the cockroaches.

However, I do not subscribe to the belief that non-human animals are of the same value as human animals, and I believe that it is the height of silly, moralistic nonsense supported by little but rabid dogma that depends on emotional appeals to irrational people.

who needs equal value? if they've got any intrinsic value at all, you've given up on anthropocentrism.

not unless you mean something radically different by it than i do.

anthropocentrism quite literally posits the moral neutrality (and possibly the occasional outright goodness) of kicking puppies.

Kicking a puppy is not necessarily morally neutral, since it tends to build a dangerous mindset that leads to harming people. However, if a puppy were attacking a human child, kicking it would, indeed, be morally good.

is there some fundamental reason why we will be unable to survive through the use of an entirely domesticated ecosystem? do we need a species of beetle that lives in a 6 square mile patch of rainforest in brazil?

we are not in much danger from either climate change or the current mass extinction event - we are incredibly successful generalists, we'll be here with the rats and the cockroaches.

Actually, that beetle could be the key genetic resource providing a cure to cancer, or AIDS. That's one of the many reasons that Bio-diversity is important. There are people who will be badly harmed by Climage Change. We already saw thousands of them die in New Orleans. Increased flooding, draught (sp?), and weakened soil will also harm subsistence farmers and privaleged suburbanites alike (although the farmers get the shitter deal).



who needs equal value? if they've got any intrinsic value at all, you've given up on anthropocentrism.

Not at all. Something can have a value to humans. For example, I do not believe that a cat has an intrinsic value, but I do care deeply for my pets, and therefore they have attained the status, to me, of having a value. Similarly, a resource has a value, even a moral one. Abusing it is irresponsible and wasteful.

I think it's scary.

As a question: Did any of you see the program "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

Actually, that beetle could be the key genetic resource providing a cure to cancer, or AIDS.

Indeed, let's do nothing for fear of changing anything.

I say - adapt or die beetle!

Kicking a puppy is not necessarily morally neutral, since it tends to build a dangerous mindset that leads to harming people.

suppose we know that joe will not develop a mindset that leads him to think that harming humans is ok (he is deeply committed to non-violence towards any morally relevant entity - in this case all and only humans - and he has a stable psychology, etc). he just gets his jollies kicking puppies. moreover, joe makes sure that the puppies he kicks are not instrumentally valuable to anyone else before kicking them.
anthropocentrism is committed to saying "good for joe!"

Actually, that beetle could be the key genetic resource providing a cure to cancer, or AIDS.

that doesn't make it necessary, just potentially somewhat useful. we wouldn't be adversely affected by its loss, we just wouldn't gain a possible benefit that we might have otherwise. a far cry from coming anywhere near survival threatening.

now suppose the beetle isn't such a resource, or suppose we can just as well manufacture the needed chemical in a lab - as is quite usually the case. or better still, we have already gotten a full genetic and biochemical library from the beetle. there will be no loss to us at all then if the thing goes extinct. anthropocentrism then seemingly must say that if we have some human purpose for those 6 miles of rainforest - any purpose at all - it's bye bye beetle.

as i said, anthropocentic environmentalism must necessarily progressively surrender ground on the environmental front due to technological advances taking over for or gather all the possible information from 'ecosystem or biological services'. and that is at the theoretical level - it takes way less work to get everybody convinced of the anthropocentric benefits of doing all sorts of destructive nonsense, and you won't have any solid footing to push back from except for magical thinking that maybe there is something we missed that we couldn't possibly find some other way. you could try, but nobody will buy it.

Not at all. Something can have a value to humans. For example, I do not believe that a cat has an intrinsic value, but I do care deeply for my pets, and therefore they have attained the status, to me, of having a value. Similarly, a resource has a value, even a moral one. Abusing it is irresponsible and wasteful.

actually, i'm pretty sure that deeply caring about your pets pretty well requires that you recognize that they are valuable in themselves. an argument to the contrary looks like it will run into exactly the same problem that arguments against human altruism run into. we really do treat our pets like we treat other things we recognize as having intrinsic moral value, and not like we treat mere tools.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/warming/

The CS monitor is putting the opinions of those who give them on their site. I thought a few people here would be interested enough to have a say about global warming.

It'sa niiice...

It takes a lot to get me worried, so I remained unconcerned. Ultimately, we're all dead--might as well enjoy what you've got.

As a question: Did any of you see the program "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

Sounds like something that went straight to beta.
Or something Flush Limblob would bring up to stir "controversy."
But, no, i haven't. What's the Cliff's notes like? Any neat pictures? Perhaps statements from astronomers about the position of the sun? Any quotes from Fred Phelps?

suppose we know that joe will not develop a mindset that leads him to think that harming humans is ok (he is deeply committed to non-violence towards any morally relevant entity - in this case all and only humans - and he has a stable psychology, etc). he just gets his jollies kicking puppies. moreover, joe makes sure that the puppies he kicks are not instrumentally valuable to anyone else before kicking them.
anthropocentrism is committed to saying "good for joe!"

Good post, mon capitan, but i especially liked this part.
*bows*

Y2K didn't cause a massive computer failure across the globe because we prepared for it, and assessed the threat realistically. We are merely sitting back and passively allowing Global Climate Change to continue.

And, as an economically Conservative Democrat, I hardly qualify as a Green. Anthropocentric Environmentalism is the only sustainable mindset.

Anthropocentrism (Greek άνθρωπος, anthropos, human being, κέντρον, kentron, "center") is the idea that, for humans, humans must be the central concern, and that humanity must judge all things accordingly: Anthropos (the term, like “human”, refers to both men and women) must be considered, looked after and cared for, above all other real or imaginary beings. Anthropocentrism is a secular, rational and realistic perspective that is closely related to humanism

The environment that is Earth is not meant just for mankind. So an environment that is human centered is not the best thing. Also the Global climate change study models don't always include water vapors as part of the cause of Global warming even though they are the primary cause.

I agree with that point about anthropocentric and environmentalism being mutually exclusive. Sure, human, being a part of the environment, depends on it, but anthropocentrism says on the subject: "The environment is only as important as it affects me".

That's not a good mindset. I'm not in the support of radical green which put environment first unquestionably, but, in my opinion, needs of human and the environment should be balanced to a certain degree. Anthropocentrism says "You may pollute as much as you want, as long as you don't do it around your house".

Modern ecological technologies are quite advanced. They offer reduction of toxic emissions (I don't mean CO2) up to tens of times for only percents added to the production costs. Filters, separators, internal recycling, chemical reprocessing. Most pollutants are actually used in other processes; but still one factory throws acids into the air or water, while another produces them for chemistry, just because it saves on cost of separation and transportation.
It's not only in the big industry. We use 2-ton cars to carry around 0.08-ton person, just because everyone wants his car to be his own, and be big, where just a train/bus could suffice for mass transport and a small car when really needed. After ten years these cars are trashed, because it's cheaper to buy new steel rather than recycle it, and selling a new car each ten years is more profitable than making one which lasts longer. Products are also made for minimal lifetime, just to sell more of them. No, free-market ecology approach doesn't work.

I think humanity, both certain parts and as a whole, does way too much "Just because we can".




Ecological problem doesn't require going back on trees; it can be solved better with just the same market system. What it takes is simply selling pollution units just like land or electricity: you want to pollute, you buy units from a company which cleans ecological damage, same-weighted amount of pollution. That makes it always sensible to reduce pollution, turning it into a resource one has to pay for.
With the current system, you only need to meet certain loose requirements and there's no incentive to reduce pollution below that. And, of course, these requirements are made so that everyone can meet them at ease. Market-based approach to cleaning, where the government only needs to assess damage and cleanup, also works better than the "common pool" system which leaves the incentive for more efficient methods out of the equation.

As a question: Did any of you see the program "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

The program that outright lied to make a false point?

suppose we know that joe will not develop a mindset that leads him to think that harming humans is ok (he is deeply committed to non-violence towards any morally relevant entity - in this case all and only humans - and he has a stable psychology, etc). he just gets his jollies kicking puppies. moreover, joe makes sure that the puppies he kicks are not instrumentally valuable to anyone else before kicking them.
anthropocentrism is committed to saying "good for joe!"

What if that puppy were, say, a cockroach. We accept people crushing them regularly. The only reason you have a problem with this is because puppies are cute. It's the same as the bullshit over the seals (we are, y'know saving seals by doing this, because more would die in a J-crash, and it would destabalize the ecosystem).




-snip the big middle section for space-

Well, I was talking about sustainability in the next century or two. Beyond that, I cant forecast because I'm not a futurist (or futurologist, or what ever they are called). For the immediate future (a century or two), the sustainable human option is anthropocentric environmentalism.


actually, i'm pretty sure that deeply caring about your pets pretty well requires that you recognize that they are valuable in themselves. an argument to the contrary looks like it will run into exactly the same problem that arguments against human altruism run into. we really do treat our pets like we treat other things we recognize as having intrinsic moral value, and not like we treat mere tools.

Not really. I have attributed value to my cats that they do not truly have. This is because, as a human, I attribute value to members of my "tribe", and I seek to take care of them. It is simply pack instinct coming out. I do not beleive that my cats, no matter how much I love them, are more important than my brothers, or even my neighbor. They have no rational value, but they have a great deal of emotional value. That does not grant them real value, but it does grant them the illusion of value.

For people, the illusion of value is, in many ways, nearly as important as real value is. That is another reason that the antropocentric mindset does not contradict seeking to protect the environment. If I can say, "You know, I attach a strong emotional value to the environment," and recognize that preserving the environment, as long as living people are not hurt, is a reasonable value, I am still anthropocentric.

I agree with that point about anthropocentric and environmentalism being mutually exclusive. Sure, human, being a part of the environment, depends on it, but anthropocentrism says on the subject: "The environment is only as important as it affects me".

Absolutely. However, the fact of the matter is that anyone who has taken even a basic environmental science course knows that the interconnectedness of the environment means that harming the environment is generally harming ourselves.

Absolutely. However, the fact of the matter is that anyone who has taken even a basic environmental science course knows that the interconnectedness of the environment means that harming the environment is generally harming ourselves.

Really?

"We did not weave the Web of Life.
We are merely a strand in it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves."

-- Chief Seattle

I've never seen the Chief's college transcript, but I'm certain ESCI 101 wasn't on it. It doesn't take an education, it takes observation.

Really?

"We did not weave the Web of Life.
We are merely a strand in it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves."

-- Chief Seattle

I've never seen the Chief's college transcripts, but I'm certain ESCI 101 wasn't on it. It doesn't take an education, it takes observation.

Observation is fine and nice, but is not necessarily the truth. I can observe something, but because I have not tested using control methods, and because I have not repeated the experiment in a closed settin, I do not have conclusive evidence. ESCI 101 provides facts gained through experimentation and research. Elsewise, we are no better than fundamentalists believing what we like because we want it to be true.

Pollution is a Market Failure because the effects of producing it are not taken into account in the cost for the consumer.
Take cigarettes or binge drinking for example, it causes all sorts of damage for the body and potentially to other people but the cost to society is not taken into account when these products are sold.
To correct this, the government places restrictions on their use and taxes the products to lower their consumption. Beyond a certain threshold in price, illegal trade will supply the product more cheaply than legal trade and this is seen in the trade in illegal drugs.
Another market failure is education, the overall benefits of having an educated workforce is worth the expenditure of vast quantities of government money on free education because the market price would not take into account the benefits.
This is very basic economics.

As you can see, carbon dioxide emissions are a type of pollution because they cause global warming, just like CFC's are pollutants which damage the ozone layer. CFC's, formerly used in fridges and aerosols were banned to keep the ozone layer from being completely destroyed. However, banning CO2 emissions would destroy the whole global economy, therefore sensible, continuous reductions in CO2 emissions are the best way to go about this, preferably by using market forces to make this happen, eg using a carbon emissions trading scheme.
Of course, the market won't fix itself on its own, you need governments to make the legislations and enforce them which unfortunately does not happen enough.

I think it's fair enough to say that both points are correct. KSP said anyone who had taken the course would understand this.

This does NOT mean that anybody NOT having taken the course must be ignorant of it. It is perhaps ONE source of it, but not the only.

Observation is fine and nice, but is not necessarily the truth. I can observe something, but because I have not tested using control methods, and because I have not repeated the experiment in a closed settin, I do not have conclusive evidence. ESCI 101 provides facts gained through experimentation and research. Elsewise, we are no better than fundamentalists believing what we like because we want it to be true.

I'm pretty sure that a native american chief, his people having lived on the land for generations upon generations has pretty solid evidence to support his beliefs as to what happens when you fuck with the enviornment.

What if that puppy were, say, a cockroach. We accept people crushing them regularly. The only reason you have a problem with this is because puppies are cute. It's the same as the bullshit over the seals (we are, y'know saving seals by doing this, because more would die in a J-crash, and it would destabalize the ecosystem).

in other words, it is right and good that anthropocentrism cheers on joe the conscientious puppy-kicker, and anyone thinking otherwise is just morally confused? really?

cockroaches having significantly less intrinsic value than puppies - perhaps even having none at all - doesn't really undermine the point.

Well, I was talking about sustainability in the next century or two. Beyond that, I cant forecast because I'm not a futurist (or futurologist, or what ever they are called). For the immediate future (a century or two), the sustainable human option is anthropocentric environmentalism.

except that right this very instant we literally do not require the continued existence of most species on the planet. and we certainly do not require the ones that we have already eliminated. so long as there was any benefit to humans at all in the actions that led to previous extinctions and ecosystem degradation, then those extinctions and destructions are right and just according to any sort of anthropocentric ethics. anthropocentrism is fundamentally incompatible with concern for the environment.

Not really. I have attributed value to my cats that they do not truly have. This is because, as a human, I attribute value to members of my "tribe", and I seek to take care of them. It is simply pack instinct coming out.
...
They have no rational value, but they have a great deal of emotional value. That does not grant them real value, but it does grant them the illusion of value.


it would not be difficult to use exactly the same argument for other humans. how do you determine real intrinsic value from illusionary intrinsic value?

I do not beleive that my cats, no matter how much I love them, are more important than my brothers, or even my neighbor.

nor do they have to be. as long as they have any non-instrumental/non-extrinsic value at all, then that value is definitionally non-anthropocentric. if your cat deserves to not be tortured, even if you would never find out about the torture, then your cat has intrinsic value. and this can only be accounted for by some sort of non-anthropocentric ethics.

EVERYONE:

STOP CALLING IT GLOBAL WARMING.


IT'S GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. IT CAN GET WARMER OR COOLER, BUT THE EFFECTS IT HAS CAN BE CATACLYSMIC REGARDLESS.




IF YOU CONTINUE CALLING IT 'GLOBAL WARMING', THEN IDIOTS LIKE FREEDOM GLORY WILL NOT GET IT.




THANK YOU,


The Management.

They have no rational value, but they have a great deal of emotional value. That does not grant them real value, but it does grant them the illusion of value.
I, for one, don't think humans have any intrinsic value. Why would they?

At least, no more than other environment. I'm not misanthropic; but, well, there's a lot of humans better gone, so, logically, I don't see any special intrinsic value in them. Yes, I don't see why I should care about my neighbor any more than about some seal somewhere; after all, my neighbor isn't endangered species, but, on the big scale, more like a pest for the Earth.

And nazism is nothing more but taking anthropocentrism a step ahead. The next step is, though, merely egoism, which hasn't yet shown off as well as nazism.

I'm pretty sure that a native american chief, his people having lived on the land for generations upon generations has pretty solid evidence to support his beliefs as to what happens when you fuck with the enviornment.

I tend to agree. I did not mean to contend that all observations were incorrect, merely that observation did not have the scientific exactness that experimentation has.

in other words, it is right and good that anthropocentrism cheers on joe the conscientious puppy-kicker, and anyone thinking otherwise is just morally confused? really?

cockroaches having significantly less intrinsic value than puppies - perhaps even having none at all - doesn't really undermine the point.

It is merely morally neutral that joe the conscientious puppy-kicker kicks puppies.

except that right this very instant we literally do not require the continued existence of most species on the planet. and we certainly do not require the ones that we have already eliminated. so long as there was any benefit to humans at all in the actions that led to previous extinctions and ecosystem degradation, then those extinctions and destructions are right and just according to any sort of anthropocentric ethics. anthropocentrism is fundamentally incompatible with concern for the environment.

Well, to contend that any species has no anthropocentric value is incorrect. Not only the enjoyment we derive from their existence, but their essentialness in the continued balance in the environment must be considered. So too, must their potential value as genetic resources to be protected and developed.


it would not be difficult to use exactly the same argument for other humans. how do you determine real intrinsic value from illusionary intrinsic value?

And here we come to an entirely different argument, and one which is significantly more difficult. Are humans valueble? I beleive that sentience, and the status of the moral agent is, in fact, a moral value, but I recognize that many feel differently.

nor do they have to be. as long as they have any non-instrumental/non-extrinsic value at all, then that value is definitionally non-anthropocentric. if your cat deserves to not be tortured, even if you would never find out about the torture, then your cat has intrinsic value. and this can only be accounted for by some sort of non-anthropocentric ethics.

I do not wish my cats to be tortured, but I do not beleive that they either deserve to be tortured, or deserve not to be tortured, except in their value to me, and the trauma that my family might experience. Once again, you are attaching the purely emotional question of how I feel about my cats to the rational question of the moral value of a cat.

It can't be stopped. It can't be slowed. Do people have an impact on the environment? Sure, but it's usually pretty small unless it's really concentrated like in the big cities of China. Humans are not the defenders of the environment, just one part of many. Man is not bigger than nature.

Having said all that it'd be really frickin cool if it were possible to control the weather and climate of the whole damn planet.

Let the free market handle it. If people desire to embark upon a mad crusade to rid the world of every single mole of carbon dioxide, let them. Rational people, who realize that global warming is nothing more than an alarmist hoax, can continue to pollute as they desire. In the 70s, the big scare was global cooling; now, it's global warming. Irony, anyone? Don't let manipulated data tell you how to live your life; that would go contrary to freedom. Those who want to limit your freedoms to do as you wish under the guise of global warming are no different than all others who wish to erode your rights. Keep this country free -- don't bow in to this transparent ploy to curb your rights.

I don't think you're a very successful troll.

You need to start your own threads to get into the big game.

It can't be stopped. It can't be slowed.

evidence?

Its too late to stop Global Warming or even minimise it to any efficient extent.

What we should be doing is preparing ourselves for our lives post-Ice Cap melt, we should be building dams and dykes, storing foodstuffs, activating desalinisation plants, reorganising our refugee-hosting status, etc...

Its decades too late to stop the causes of Global Warming without destroying the global economy.