Man is 'Killing the Planet'
- Thread starter duendy
- Start date
Don't worry yourself, Chatha. Using pencils and paper is not causing deforestation, no matter how much the eco-nutjobs would like you to believe it.Chatha said:
Most of today's deforestation is caused by farmers in developing nations trying to keep their families alive. Endangered species are nowhere near 1/3 of the total and science has yet to conclusively determine whether or not global warming is even occurring much less been able to attribute it to human factors.
Not to say we shouldn't be concerned. I definitely support doing what we can to reduce our impact on the environment but don't let the "Eco aware" scare tactics fool you, most of what they have to say amounts to political demagoguery. And bad science remains bad science.
~Raithere
Most recycling costs more in energy and pollution than it saves. You wind up with more pollution when you use recycled paper (for instance) than from using new. Transportation and processing costs energy and produce waste. Metal (and glass, I believe) are exceptions.cosmictraveler said:
~Raithere
If people think of "not killing the planet" as a remnant of living things surviving to eventually evolve into something resembling that existed only 50 years ago, then that's a fine line. Our problems are not ecological, though those are rampant, it's psychological. Dueny is correct by characterizing pathriarchal culture as sick and the root cause of mankind's pathology. Especially the end times theology causes people to feell as though there is no future, so thats how they act, SUV's and monster homes in suburbia are only a pitstop to eternity with Jezus, and wars in the middle east to protect the oil fits right iin. Radical changes are required, and will indeed occur when things get touch=and=go, but we can jump ahead, the hints are all out there if you can read between the lines.
Humans are killing the world? Whodathunkit...
Yes, but to entirely save it, to fix it all the way, the world would have to kill off humans. But, that is NOT an option(at least, not one that a human should pursue). As an indiviual, to prevent it? Go to engineering school and make some marvelous engine that runs off some infinite resource, like, static electricity in the air. Then, no more fossil fuels to be burnt. To limit the population? That is risky, and most ways to do so are unethical(not developing new medicines to prevent people from living longer, blatantly killing off people). One could fight against those who say anti-conception(forgive me if that is the wrong term, it has slipped my mind)devices/drugs are immoral. Some examples, I'm sure there are more.
Yes, but to entirely save it, to fix it all the way, the world would have to kill off humans. But, that is NOT an option(at least, not one that a human should pursue). As an indiviual, to prevent it? Go to engineering school and make some marvelous engine that runs off some infinite resource, like, static electricity in the air. Then, no more fossil fuels to be burnt. To limit the population? That is risky, and most ways to do so are unethical(not developing new medicines to prevent people from living longer, blatantly killing off people). One could fight against those who say anti-conception(forgive me if that is the wrong term, it has slipped my mind)devices/drugs are immoral. Some examples, I'm sure there are more.
yeah, i mean...
that we're killing the planet is not news to me, nor anyone with at least 10 I.Q....
i say keep killin it; finish the job. i'm going to be dead in 60 years, what do I care if the planet is inhospitable in 100 years, or whatever.
that we're killing the planet is not news to me, nor anyone with at least 10 I.Q....
i say keep killin it; finish the job. i'm going to be dead in 60 years, what do I care if the planet is inhospitable in 100 years, or whatever.
We don't have to get rid of the humans, our population will peak and then fall with education and birth control.
Hapsburg said:
Yes, Haps, that attitude is a huge part of the attitude that is trashing this planet. multiplied it is disastrous. It is coming from a limited understanding of your relationsip with Nature, which has been split off from it via mechanicalist theories--especially the last 300 years os materialistic and mechanistic science----which claims that you are dis-connected from your body and Nature. This belief is especially so now.
But our ancinet ancestors know differently. They knew that this is our HOME. death is a transition. obviouls y you cant be that body for even. it HAS to die. like tree dies, flower, cow, bird..etc etc --their forms must die. But awarenesses we we all share are 'recycled. do you understand Hapsburg? this is our home. when you die 'you', you form and 'persona'--yes they die, but that isn't ALL of what YOU are. so what you do to this planet, will somehow effect YOU. this is hard to explain but try. you have to dig that awareness is shared by every being here, and this is its home. so if we trash this Earth and make living in it hell, you cant imagine you can escape that. SO really feel your way to NOT do that. not just for YOU, but for all other species that live here
Because the world does not revolve around you..Hapsburg said:
About 3 days ago I saw space shots taken 20 years ago and same shots taken this year, the difference is appalling!!!
Example: Yanktse River delta 20 years ago was relatively clear, now there is a broad brown build up of silt, strentching miles into the sea, all from soil being washed downstream from ecological upheaval upstream.
Example: Spain, southern Spain was beautiful and green 20 years ago, now the same region is white - reason, hundreds of square miles of greenhouses have covered the landscape. The rain forest is still vanishing at an alarming rate and nobody is doing a damn thing about saving what are the "lungs" of our planet. All people care about is now and not tomorrow.
We also have an estimated 45 years only before global warming sea levels begin to become " a problem" and places like holland and low lying coastal regions become inundated with sea water.
Example: Yanktse River delta 20 years ago was relatively clear, now there is a broad brown build up of silt, strentching miles into the sea, all from soil being washed downstream from ecological upheaval upstream.
Example: Spain, southern Spain was beautiful and green 20 years ago, now the same region is white - reason, hundreds of square miles of greenhouses have covered the landscape. The rain forest is still vanishing at an alarming rate and nobody is doing a damn thing about saving what are the "lungs" of our planet. All people care about is now and not tomorrow.
We also have an estimated 45 years only before global warming sea levels begin to become " a problem" and places like holland and low lying coastal regions become inundated with sea water.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
JohnGalt said:
The worldwide "population explosion" is a flaw with our narrow human linear time perspective, which pretty much wouldn't exist from God's beyond-time perspective. We try to force our observations into theories and patterns, into which they just don't quite fit.
That there are so many people in the world these days, is not some evolutionary fluke of nature, but by design. God designed humans to multiply. Most everybody wants or ends up having babies. When people started living longer, due to better sanitation or medical care or whatever, that was not some signal to somehow compensate by lowering birthrates, but all the more reason to leave our birthrates high and let human populations accumulate for the good of society and the good of the many people.
People don't really have a parasitic nature upon nature, but we are symbiotic, God having given us dominion over nature and other creatures (another reason why nature just can't or won't seem to resist our population growth), and part of subduing and dominating numbers, is not just because humans are intelligent or "we can," but also by sheer numbers.
Malthus supposedly said that somebody must die to make room for each birth. Whatever for? What was his alternative then, that he was too afraid to mention? Let human populations accumulate, and put the additional people in between all the people living already. Welcome the world to grow denser and denser with people. If God really does exist, isn't that pretty much what the Bible commands, and why then human population ever rises? Babies want to be born and live, regardless how many people preceed them. More and more people would be glad to live, so large families should be encouraged even in the most heavily populous of regions.
That people would even ask questions such as "Well who do we get rid of?," to somehow limit or reduce world population, shows that the human race would much rather enlarge its numbers than "control" them, and that it was designed to do so. The answer is not contraception, but population accomodation, and a more pronatalist world, would more readily adapt to its rising human population levels. Humans should be grateful to get to be or become among the most populous of the large mammals. The more people there are alive simutaneously, the more fellow humans there are who can enjoy life. Win-win for everybody.
Human population "control" makes no sense, because there is no "we" that can get together to decide what the population level should be, nor no moral or ethical means by which to enforce it. To determine proper population size, requires a "higher power." For animals, their "higher power" is their human masters/owners, who may properly get them "fixed" to be better pets, as they don't need offspring as they have us for "families." For people, our "higher power" is God, who clearly commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. While that commandment doesn't actually imply that the earth will ever become "full" of people, it does imply that each successive generation is supposed to grow ever larger and more populous than the previous, and that over time, the world is supposed to become ever fuller and fuller of people, until the Biblical endtimes at least. It also implies that parents shouldn't use "preventative measures" to limit their natural family growth, as wouldn't that be "rebellion?" Even without the masses using awkward and unnatural, anti-life "birth control," humans aren't much prone to "overpopulation," because God didn't create us too fertile, and while human populations may tend to grow steadily and relentlessly, they also grow gradually, giving much time to prepare and adapt to our natural increase. The best way to manage human population growth, is to give humans all the room and resources they may need to grow, and encourage the human race to naturally enlarge. Humans should be some sort of part of nature too, so our many cities to hold all the people, along with building more cities and towns and urban sprawl when necessary due to population growth, aren't "intrusions" upon nature, but also should be considered "natural." And a little thought should reveal that the most natural and elegant outlet for powerful human reproductive urges, is for people to pair up and marry, and REPRODUCE. Why is the reproductive function of humans considered to be so shamed or unnatural? It's vital to life too, and should be allowed to function normally, without having to be p o i s o n e d by chemicals, drugs, hormones, devices, to hinder its normal reproductive function. The most natural form of human "birth control" should be obviously a womb that is already occupied by a baby. Babies generally come 1 at a time, and with various natural infertility gaps, so natural family growth should be well within the realm of managability.
My personal forum is Innovation Station at http://forums.delphiforums.com/innovate1
Rk001 said:
Well, if that were actually true, then we probably wouldn't have a problem, would we? No, I think not. The reason for all the pollution is that most people DON'T CARE ........
Oh, they SAY they do, but they say it as they throw a MacDonald's carton onto the sidewalk! No, people DON'T CARE.
Oh, they SAY they care about the air pollution .....as they flick on all the lights in the house and suck the electricity out of the power plants!
Talk is cheap, boys and girls. And all you need do is look around and you'll see just how cheap talk has been since the early 60's.
Baron Max
Yet again, another baron max post, smeared with condesending coments, tell me, do you truly belive you -baron max, are above everyone else??Intrested in a reply from you this timeBaron Max said:
:m:john smith said:
Why would you ask that?
I just typed some words ...those words have meanings in and of themselves, regardless of who typed them. What words did you read that made you ask such a question?
Or are you one of those people who first determines WHO says something PRIOR to reading the words .....and thus begin with a bias stance?
Baron Max
Bias stance is the ONLY stance to take with (or shud i say against you).
extrasense
Registered Senior Member
That is true, but really does not focus on anything.Rk001 said:
Deforestation and forest mismanagement are the most critical areas where we fail, and we hear little about them.
ES
Yes, yes...and when we eventually move to Mars we will destroy that environ as well. It is called terraforming. It is called evolution. The fit will survive.
Sixty-five million years ago, did the Bedrock Gazette run stories of "destroying" the earth because of the radical climactic changes causing mass extinctions (the dinosaurs, and yes, I do know the Flintstones are fictional)...
So, like then and many times before and since, new species will emerge that are better suitted. If it is not us...so be it, life will go on!
- KitNyx
Sixty-five million years ago, did the Bedrock Gazette run stories of "destroying" the earth because of the radical climactic changes causing mass extinctions (the dinosaurs, and yes, I do know the Flintstones are fictional)...
So, like then and many times before and since, new species will emerge that are better suitted. If it is not us...so be it, life will go on!
- KitNyx
extrasense
Registered Senior Member
Considering that we are unable to take care of little changes of Earth environment, a fat chance we would do any good on MarsKitNyx said:
The White population, the largest of the five race/ethnic groups, is projected to be the slowest-growing among the groups during the 1995 to 2025 projection period. During this period, the White population is projected account for at least one-fifth of the absolute increase in the Nation's population in all regions except in the Northeast (where this group declines in size). Sixty-seven percent of the 16 million Whites added to the U.S. population will be located in the South.
Over the 30 years, the Black population is projected to be the second slowest-growing in all regions, except the South where it will rank third. Sixty-four percent of the 12 million Blacks added to the United States during 1995 to 2025 will be in the South.
The Asian population is the fastest-growing group in all regions. Asians are the fourth largest of the race and Hispanic origin groups in all regions except the West where they rank third. The Asian population is projected to have the greatest gains in the West with an increase of 7 million persons (56 percent of the total added to the U.S. Asian population during 1995 to 2025) and in the Northeast with an increase of 2 million.
The American Indian population, the least populous group, is projected to be the third fastest-growing population in all regions but the South during 1995 to 2025 where it ranked fourth. Nearly half of the 0.8 million American Indians added to the Nation's American Indian population will be located in the West.
The Hispanic origin population is projected to increase rapidly over the 1995 to 2025 projection period, accounting for 44 percent of the growth in the Nation's population (32 million Hispanics out of a total of 72 million persons added to the Nation's population). The Hispanic origin population is the second fastest-growing population, after Asians, in every region over the 30 year period.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/ppl47.html
Over the 30 years, the Black population is projected to be the second slowest-growing in all regions, except the South where it will rank third. Sixty-four percent of the 12 million Blacks added to the United States during 1995 to 2025 will be in the South.
The Asian population is the fastest-growing group in all regions. Asians are the fourth largest of the race and Hispanic origin groups in all regions except the West where they rank third. The Asian population is projected to have the greatest gains in the West with an increase of 7 million persons (56 percent of the total added to the U.S. Asian population during 1995 to 2025) and in the Northeast with an increase of 2 million.
The American Indian population, the least populous group, is projected to be the third fastest-growing population in all regions but the South during 1995 to 2025 where it ranked fourth. Nearly half of the 0.8 million American Indians added to the Nation's American Indian population will be located in the West.
The Hispanic origin population is projected to increase rapidly over the 1995 to 2025 projection period, accounting for 44 percent of the growth in the Nation's population (32 million Hispanics out of a total of 72 million persons added to the Nation's population). The Hispanic origin population is the second fastest-growing population, after Asians, in every region over the 30 year period.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/ppl47.html