Taking care of our planet

[Revenge]

let me remind you all that if we don't try and help our planet it could result in serious disasters world wide.

so...go post NOW.

(oh and, rationalinquirer gave me the idea to post this thread.)

[Tatterdemalion]

I agree.

Earth Day Dance!

http://www.vauss.com/sinfest/sf20010422.gif

[RationalInquirer]

let me remind you all that if we don't try and help our planet it could result in serious disasters world wide.

so...go post NOW.

(oh and, rationalinquirer gave me the idea to post this thread.)

Do you mean helping the environment as a whole? Global Warming and depletion of fossil fuels only? Or just the living species? I'm curious.

[Revenge]

all of it.

the whole thing.

[darkarcher]

On topic now.

I sort of have mixed feelings about environmental pushes in government. Yes, it's important to take care of the earth, but I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be.

[Tatterdemalion]

I sort of have mixed feelings about environmental pushes in government. Yes, it's important to take care of the earth, but I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be.

Neither do I. It's actually much worse.

[RationalInquirer]

I sort of have mixed feelings about environmental pushes in government. Yes, it's important to take care of the earth, but I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be.

I agree that because of human intervention, the Earth is subject to things like Global Warming and extinction of living species. However, it all boils down to this. If we continue to pollute our planet and consume resources like theres no tomorrow, then we humans will suffer the consequences as a result of our inaction.

The impact on the entire planet Earth itself, is relatively minor though. It's just we humans and animals who are screwed. Earth has gone through much worse far before we arrived. Such as : ice ages, movement of plate tectonics, continental drifts, formation of supercontinents liek Pangea, super volcanoes, megatsunamies, worldwide earthquakes, numerous massive extinction events like the one that concluded the Mesozoic era (the era of dinosaurs) and the subsequent Cenozoic era. The Earth will eventually, after thousands/millions of years, adapt to a warmer world. By which time, civilization as we know it will be long gone.

Governments and organizations have begun to turn their attention to this matter but much of their sights are still focused on the economy (perhaps they always were?) Heres a question:

Which do you consider more important? The economy, and the millions of jobs at stake? Or environmentally preserving our homely planet, to ensure that our future generations don't have to live in a disaster-torn Earth? Perhaps they are both on somewhat equal ground? I know it's a difficult question.

For me, I guess in the long term, the environment is more important. Although I've never been a huge supporter of conservation and the like, I can see that the environment is much more susceptible to damage if not dealt with.

In regards to the economy, I don't know how long were going to be in this damn recession. 40 000 people were layed off on Monday alone. But, as in the past, the economy will eventually stabalize itself after much spending, trading, bail outs, mortgage adjustments, tax reductions, and a prolonged deficit. Then the process repeats itself.

Neither do I. It's actually much worse.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how will you rate it? 1 being absolutely terrible and 10 being nothing to concern ourselves about.

[Fat1Fared]

National, the thing is, some things we are too blame for, like extinction SOME of living species, because of things such as wood cutting

But global warming is something we are a small part of at best, and comes down to fact the governments realise that their ecomony's are screwed if we allow more countries to grow like China, so use global warming as an excuse to restrict them, why'll fudging tests and repressing any reports which go against their key theory's and there are more than you may think

Also it is to stop us commoners using all the resources like patrol (which in itself is good thing) but they do it so they can use it for even worse things like pointless wars (not even "good" wars)

With the real insult being that we are told to change our ways when one of THEIR factories does more to planet in day than I will do in my life, if global warming is true. Or you have their rockets from their war machines and the fact they get to these "Global Warming" treaties in an army of First class planes in very COLD countries which needs a lot of HEATING

The whole thing is joke

PS don't worry even if I am wrong, we will have nuke ourselves or ran out of resources long before we died of sun burn (Malfuas have been wrong 130 years ago, but his theory of race out growing resources may be true now)

[Tatterdemalion]

The impact on the entire planet Earth itself, is relatively minor though. It's just we humans and animals who are screwed. Earth has gone through much worse far before we arrived. Such as : ice ages, movement of plate tectonics, continental drifts, formation of supercontinents liek Pangea, super volcanoes, megatsunamies, worldwide earthquakes, numerous massive extinction events like the one that concluded the Mesozoic era (the era of dinosaurs) and the subsequent Cenozoic era. The Earth will eventually, after thousands/millions of years, adapt to a warmer world.

Which is kind of irrelevant to us because

By which time, civilization as we know it will be long gone.

Keep in mind, the term "environment" is used to emphasize that we're talking about the world in which we live and on which we depend on, not just some random planet floating around in space that we study due to curiosity. Not that curiosity isn't important, but environmental issues have a great deal to do with how the Earth relates to us.

Which do you consider more important? The economy, and the millions of jobs at stake? Or environmentally preserving our homely planet, to ensure that our future generations don't have to live in a disaster-torn Earth? Perhaps they are both on somewhat equal ground? I know it's a difficult question.


It goes like this: Human industry and modern economics have only bveen around for a few hundred years. For the vast majority of our history we've gotten along without them. We also must consider that humans are adaptive as a species and can not only become accomodated to a drastic change in environment or lifestyle, but can become even stronger and stabler as a result.

On the other hand, you have the natural environment, which humans have always needed, and which, once it's done away with too much, can't just be restored in a few years.

The economy is a construct in passing, a modern experiment of epic proportions that's worked on some levels, and failed on many others. The environment, however, is a universal constant, something that we could never have come to exist without, and which we couldn't possibly continue to exist without.

I think the choice is obvious. It's less a question of whether the environment s worth preserving as it is one of how the environment is going to be preserved.

Also, I object to my planet being called "homely." I think it's quite pretty, thank you very much.

In regards to the economy, I don't know how long were going to be in this damn recession. 40 000 people were layed off on Monday alone. But, as in the past, the economy will eventually stabalize itself after much spending, trading, bail outs, mortgage adjustments, tax reductions, and a prolonged deficit. Then the process repeats itself.

Or overconsumption and an increasingly unreasonable level of demand that can't possibly be met by the world's industry will lead to the eventual collapse of the Western economic model, whereupon the entire first world will plunge into disorder and chaos, with the rest of the world, after years of warfare, will eventually be able to adapt a more agrarian system of living, and will become the centers of human culture.

I'm not saying it will happen, but still...it could.

[Tatterdemalion]

Fat1Fared, that's a nice conspiracy theory you've got, except for a few problems:

1. The significant majority of efforts regarding global warming, at least here in the US, have not actually been directed, as you claim, towards placing restrictions on development of countries like China and India.

2. Global warming research has existed before political initiatives existed to support it, and is still firmly established outside of any sort of sociopolitical context.

3. You're claiming that evidence exists, but doing nothing to demonstrate this.

4. There's a global warming thread, it's near the bottom of the third page. Not that this can't be relevant here, but I think it would be much more appropriate there, not just because it's more on topic, but because that way you can read everything that's already been said on the subject.

[Fat1Fared]

1 well cannot give all blame to other countries, so do what is called a calculated hit, and only now have they even started to do a little towards it in own back gardens,

2 Yes and it was pretty small time, it has come into its own in last 5 years as political forces see it uses. like most things it seems it is just there to scare and control us. IE if really cared they would do something like limit our car use, yet all they ever seem to do is tax us for it, hardly an effect measure.

3 sadly evidence is where my theory falls hard, as though there is some out there most ether disreputable or hard to get hold of, most of my knowledge came from essay I did, which was about Global warming, went into a believer and came out, thinking that it just didn't add

4 I will have to look at thread, I do try to stay away from this topic, but it keeps coming up and I keep opening my mouth. Hate it as seems one of areas where I look a ranting moron because it is hard to prove yet in area of science, and because most people have made there choice here

Lets just say I think we will be dead long before global warming becomes a problem (I mean humans, not just Us)

PS however if choice is so clear why are you on a computer using power and helping this evil force

[Tatterdemalion]

2 Yes and it was pretty small time, it has come into its own in last 5 years as political forces see it uses. like most things it seems it is just there to scare and control us. IE if really cared they would do something like limit our car use, yet all they ever seem to do is tax us for it, hardly an effect measure.

See, keep in mind that if they did try to limit automobile use, even more people would say that they are just trying to "scare and control us." You're suggesting that somehow global warming is something that governments universally or even widely accept, and that they're simply not doing enough to act on it. Again, I don't know about where you are, but in the US, government interest in dealing with global warming is incredibly low. And if some politicians did try to pass a bill to limit American automobile use, or to limit automobile production, it wouldn't have a chance of passing.

I mean, honestly, it's barely possible to get these guys to recognize alternative energy in the face of the well established and universally accepted fact of the limited availability of petroleum. If they won't act on something like that, how can you expect them to go so far as to tell Americans they can't drive their cars, which is tantamount to blasphemy in this country?

If global warming is, as you suggest, a government construct, why would a government go so far as to create it, then do virtually nothing to act on it? That would be the most pointless conspiracy ever.

Then again, I don't know how things are over by you.

And global warming research has not only been around for 5 years.

3 sadly evidence is where my theory falls hard, as though there is some out there most ether disreputable or hard to get hold of, most of my knowledge came from essay I did, which was about Global warming, went into a believer and came out, thinking that it just didn't add


You think it doesn't add up, but you don't have any evidence to support it...then please, understand if I don't agree with you.

PS however if choice is so clear why are you on a computer using power and helping this evil force

True, but at the same time I don't drive a car. Nor do I have a driver's license. Nor do I plan to get one any time in the forseeable future. So my use of electricity to power my computer is in a way compensated for by my complete non-use of petroleum.

And the amount of petroleum used to produce enough electricity to power a computer pales in comparison to the amount of petroleum used to drive an automobile.

[RationalInquirer]

Also, I object to my planet being called "homely." I think it's quite pretty, thank you very much.

Strange. I always thought homely was a positive term. Like in "Home Sweet Home". The dictionary defines it as having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; "the homely everyday atmosphere"; "a homey little inn"/ :) But then also says it can mean lacking in physical beauty or proportion :(

I watched Al Gore's An Inconvienient Truth and though I see the documentary as produced in terms of 'shock' value for the targetted audience. It still correctly details the harm of Global Warming. The IPCC has this to say (this article from 2007):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html

4. There's a global warming thread, it's near the bottom of the third page. Not that this can't be relevant here, but I think it would be much more appropriate there, not just because it's more on topic, but because that way you can read everything that's already been said on the subject.
The title of this thread is Saving Our Planet, so I'm pretty sure that Global Warming deserves a spot here. On the other hand, if there is a Global Warming thread that already exists, then someone can bring it back from the dead if they wish to. Then we can carry out the discussions there instead. Breaks up for me, time to get back to work!

[Fat1Fared]

Mate, Global warming is very real, but it is not what they make it out to be and like you yourself said they do very little about it, and here at lest, they highly make out they are, that is what gets me.

Maybe this comes from Fact I am in Britian where you cannot see a political report, watch a TV show or read a paper without see Global warming somewhere, though it has died down a lot, this year because we are having one of coldest in about 30 years lol

And do not get me wrong, I am all for wind power...Etc as they have other more real advantages (Nuclear energy is a good one that no one will ever use lol)

(I didn't say it had only been around 5 years, I said it has come into notice in last 5 years, go even 10 years ago and poeple would give you a blank look if said Global warming)

PS anyone who thinks this is off topic, is wrong as this is seen as biggest threat to world out there

[Tatterdemalion]

I watched Al Gore's An Inconvienient Truth and though I see the documentary as produced in terms of 'shock' value for the targetted audience.

I didn't like An Inconvenient Truth, not because I thought the information was presented in a sensationalist way, because to be honest it wasn't, but rather because there was too much fluff. I think it does too much to glorify Al Gore, which takes emphasis away from the science and information involved, overall making it less effective.

[Tatterdemalion]

Also, while I feel that to gove a detailed response to Fat1Fared wuld just lead to me repeating myself about the difference between science and government, I will say

(Nuclear energy is a good one that no one will ever use lol)


That's actually pretty true. Not that there aren't problems to do with waste disposal and containment, but nuclear power is a very efficient form of alternative energy. Were it not for Chernobyl, or to a lesser extent Three Mile Island, it would probably be given much more credit in alternative energy discussions.

[Fat1Fared]

wow, I said it jokingly because believed was going to get killed for it, well lest we agree on something, you know I do like our little mind duels , but will accept defeat here as it is simply to hard for me to prove and all I can say is, only time will tell with this one

PS there is difference between science and government, but who pays for budgets ( I know not always governments, but always someone with a hidden agenda, IE smoking companies)

[Revenge]

I do think it's important to take care of the planet because we all have to live together here, and I don't want my home dirty. I hate to see a clean lake ruined by acid rain, waste being buried underground or tossed into the ocean, the planet overheating, etc.

[Tatterdemalion]

Oh, also I just thought of this.

(I didn't say it had only been around 5 years, I said it has come into notice in last 5 years, go even 10 years ago and poeple would give you a blank look if said Global warming)

Not that there aren't more authoritative ways of demonstrating this, but in terms of popular consciousness, look at this as an example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6riY-103vbc

This clip is from 14 years ago, and in it Hugh Laurie sings the line "And as for global warming, we'll just kick ass wearing shades"

Now, this is in the context of a sketch comedy show. We're not even talking about how far scientific research or political initiatives go, we're talking about overall public awareness to the extent of being part of mainstream entertainment, going back a decade and a half.

Somehow that's more than 5 years.