|
On August 08 2013 03:04 Phael wrote:
Earth will never be infinitely sustainable, entropy dictates that sooner or later, we will run out of fuel and resources on this planet.
I might have misunderstood you. But are you saying, that since the sun wil run out of energy in some billions of years anyway, then there is no reason to preserve the earth? We should just trash it, and try to move out to the space, since that is much cheaper than just taking slightly care of the planet?
If that is somewhat near what you meant, I kinda disagree.
|
Well the only real model we have that explains why the earth is getting hotter and cooler from time to time is the greenhouse-gas model. If we look at these gases in icecaps and we go back in time we can see a strong correlation between their concentration and the global temperature.
And because we also blow this stuff into our atmosphere it makes a lot of sense that we're influencing the climate of the planet.
But i think that's not even the important part when it comes to what we actually need to do about it and i think the discussion about our energy mix is kind of obsolete. The important part is not that renewable energies are super healthy for our planet, the important part is that they're unlimited.
Oil , gas and uranium are going away. Uranium probably a lot faster than any other resource. Also nuclear energy is pretty expensive (someone needs to clean the stuff up after all) and is in general highly subsidized. Also the need for uranium will outgrow it's production which will make it even more expensive.
Oil and gas also have the problem that they're not growing on trees (although these two will be around for a little longer), but with the growing need for energy in developing countries the struggle for natural resources will probably cause a ton of geopolitical problems.
So all in all there's no way around renewable energy after all, not just because climate change is a problem but because there's just no other solution if we don't wanna go back into the stone age in ~200 years.
|
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote:
In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
|
I'm sure the earth will run out of sustainable resources far earlier than the Sun will stop shining. But regardless, my argument is that the green movement is misguided.
1.) The most important goal of humanity is the continued survival of the species.
2.) Every single environmental change to Earth, up until this point, has been enormously beneficial to humans. From the first bacteria that evolved photosynthesis which cased the worst extinction event in this planet's history, to the dinosaur meteor, to the ice ages ... everything has been only of benefit towards us.
3.) The earth is constantly changing. Its current ecosystems are unrecognizable compared to those a million years ago, and there have been many millions of years in our planet's ecological history. Is there any reason that we simply decided *now* is the best version of earth that has ever been, so therefor we must preserve it?
4.) New species and lifeforms are evolving all the time as older ones die off and become extinct. Why should we endeavor to preserve obsolete species at the cost of new ones? While the new bacteria that evolve in our landfills aren't exactly more majestic than a bald eagle, is their life fundamentally worth less? For novelty's sake, I can see having a panda or a cheetah in a zoo, but they are relics of a bygone age. Adapt or die.
5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation.
All of these statements suggest to me that instead of attempting to hold back the tide, as environmentalists are so eager to do, we should instead be concentrating on other, far more important and long reaching matters (such as the dispersion of our species). So no, we shouldn't deliberately trash our planet, but neither should we fear changing it in any way because it's going to change no matter what we do.
PS. For the sake of clarification, nuclear energy is borderline renewable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Nuclear fuel, is also, by most estimates, to be the longest lasting resource on earth:
"fast breeder reactors, fueled by uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years" - http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf
|
2.) Every single environmental change to Earth, up until this point, has been enormously beneficial to humans. From the first bacteria that evolved photosynthesis which cased the worst extinction event in this planet's history, to the dinosaur meteor, to the ice ages ... everything has been only of benefit towards us.
Off course, thats the logical result of the way in wich evolution works.
If the changes where unfavourable for us we would have turned out to be a different species and still see every event as favourable.
|
On August 08 2013 04:27 Rassy wrote:
2.) Every single environmental change to Earth, up until this point, has been enormously beneficial to humans. From the first bacteria that evolved photosynthesis which cased the worst extinction event in this planet's history, to the dinosaur meteor, to the ice ages ... everything has been only of benefit towards us.
Don't forget the black plague or any other deadly disease.
|
On August 08 2013 04:24 Phael wrote:
I'm sure the earth will run out of sustainable resources far earlier than the Sun will stop shining. But regardless, my argument is that the green movement is misguided.
1.) The most important goal of humanity is the continued survival of the species.
2.) Every single environmental change to Earth, up until this point, has been enormously beneficial to humans. From the first bacteria that evolved photosynthesis which cased the worst extinction event in this planet's history, to the dinosaur meteor, to the ice ages ... everything has been only of benefit towards us.
3.) The earth is constantly changing. Its current ecosystems are unrecognizable compared to those a million years ago, and there have been many millions of years in our planet's ecological history. Is there any reason that we simply decided *now* is the best version of earth that has ever been, so therefor we must preserve it?
4.) New species and lifeforms are evolving all the time as older ones die off and become extinct. Why should we endeavor to preserve obsolete species at the cost of new ones? While the new bacteria that evolve in our landfills aren't exactly more majestic than a bald eagle, is their life fundamentally worth less? For novelty's sake, I can see having a panda or a cheetah in a zoo, but they are relics of a bygone age. Adapt or die.
5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation.
All of these statements suggest to me that instead of attempting to hold back the tide, as environmentalists are so eager to do, we should instead be concentrating on other, far more important and long reaching matters (such as the dispersion of our species). So no, we shouldn't deliberately trash our planet, but neither should we fear changing it in any way because it's going to change no matter what we do.
Do you get all your history from right-wing documentaries dude? Human population bottle-necked to just a few thousand during the last ice age and could easily have went extinct.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate. Over billions of years, the Earth has changed many many many times, and we've only lived in a tiny sliver of time, clearly "now" is the best version of Earth for "us".
You know you can find "theoretical solve all problems" articles on every source of energy right.
|
Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
|
On August 08 2013 04:11 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote:
In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead. If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
|
In the long run the plague wasnt that bad, it got rid of overpopulation and gave the survivors better opportunities due to abundant resources, wich eventually led to the renaissance (well thats one theory at least lol, am not sure i believe in it but you can explain nearly everything in a positive way).
5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation
This risk is virtually zero imo,since the cuba crisis the world has never been close to nuclear war annymore.
And even if there would be a full out nuclear war humanity would still survive it (though it would take 1000 years to recover probably)
Only risk for anihilation comes from outer space, even diseases i dont see as a risk for humanity as a whole because some people will be imune and a disease wich would kill all humans is not realy a good tactic for the virus/bacteria from an evolutionary point of vieuw.
|
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote:Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur. Show nested quote +The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable. Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon.
Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
|
On August 08 2013 04:41 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote:Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur. The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable. Which, by the way, is essentially impossible. We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
|
On August 08 2013 04:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:41 Feartheguru wrote:On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote:Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur. The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable. Which, by the way, is essentially impossible. We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant. The science is settled huh? Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled
No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
|
On August 08 2013 04:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote:
In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead. If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready. More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
I will admit this is really not within my field of expertise, but:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120409103253.htm
Also some of the scenarios to the best of my belief suggest desert expansion as well as colder and longer winters in the northern countries in Europe due to the impact of no more Gulf-stream. I am happy to be proven wrong, but even in that case, the push for sustainable energy is not going to be wasted as suggest by the post I initially replied to. We would also need sustainable energy for our spaceshuttles as well as where we would eventually settle.
|
On August 08 2013 04:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote:
In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead. If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready. More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
More extreme weather, not so much.
|
On August 08 2013 04:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote:
In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead. If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready. More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
On August 08 2013 04:40 Rassy wrote:
In the long run the plague wasnt that bad, it got rid of overpopulation and gave the survivors better opportunities due to abundant resources, wich eventually led to the renaissance (well thats one theory at least lol, am not sure i believe in it but you can explain nearly everything in a positive way).
5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation
This risk is virtually zero imo,since the cuba crisis the world has never been close to nuclear war annymore.
And even if there would be a full out nuclear war humanity would still survive it (though it would take 1000 years to recover probably)
Only risk for anihilation comes from outer space, even diseases i dont see as a risk for humanity as a whole because some people will be imune and a disease wich would kill all humans is not realy a good tactic for the virus/bacteria from an evolutionary point of vieuw.
I hope you're not implying Aliens.
To the other point: I would argue differently. Look at the conflict between Pakistan and India. There have been many occasions in the last two decades where a nuclear war between those countries was almost inevitable. One of the main reasons for the hatred between those countries is Kashmir. Kashmir is located at the border of Pakistan and India and is the largest resource of fresh water in India and Pakistan. Guess what happens if it rains less and if it gets hotter.
On August 08 2013 04:46 Ghostcom wrote:I will admit this is really not within my field of expertise, but: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120409103253.htmAlso some of the scenarios to the best of my belief suggest desert expansion as well as colder and longer winters in the northern countries in Europe due to the impact of no more Gulf-stream. I am happy to be proven wrong, but even in that case, the push for sustainable energy is not going to be wasted as suggest by the post I initially replied to. We would also need sustainable energy for our spaceshuttles as well as where we would eventually settle.
According to NASA the Gulf stream is not slowing down. Source
|
On August 08 2013 04:41 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote:Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur. The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable. Which, by the way, is essentially impossible. We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
Wait, what?
The Apollos, the ISS, and underwater labs don't count?
I never denied man-made climate change, I'm just saying that attempting to restrain it is an act of futility, similar to "conservation". We need to learn to deal with it instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
This risk is virtually zero imo,since the cuba crisis the world has never been close to nuclear war annymore.
And even if there would be a full out nuclear war humanity would still survive it (though it would take 1000 years to recover probably)
Virtually 0 is not the same as 0. Given long enough, almost all possibilities will occur. The goal is to be diversified enough that such full-out nuclear warfare does not annihilate the human population. (Also, the risk of a nuclear war in our lifetime is roughly 10%, some Stanford professor says. So not virtually 0 either. http://phys.org/news167327145.html )
As for the crops ... if we are less able to plant and raise crops naturally, we'd have to turn to unnatural ways to raise them. Hydroponics, or other such tech. That would actually be really awesome, expanding tech for when we settle other planets.
|
On August 08 2013 04:47 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 04:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote:
In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead. If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready. More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad... Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
Can you tell me one famous era in Earth's history where there was much more heat and much more carbon in the atmosphere?
I'll give you a hint, it was when the largest creatures that ever roamed the Earth... roamed the Earth.
(The irony of calling them "greenhouse gasses" and implying that they will be bad for plant growth is not lost on me.)
|
On August 08 2013 04:47 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 04:11 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote:
In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead. If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready. More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad... Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest. Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:40 Rassy wrote:
In the long run the plague wasnt that bad, it got rid of overpopulation and gave the survivors better opportunities due to abundant resources, wich eventually led to the renaissance (well thats one theory at least lol, am not sure i believe in it but you can explain nearly everything in a positive way).
5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation
This risk is virtually zero imo,since the cuba crisis the world has never been close to nuclear war annymore.
And even if there would be a full out nuclear war humanity would still survive it (though it would take 1000 years to recover probably)
Only risk for anihilation comes from outer space, even diseases i dont see as a risk for humanity as a whole because some people will be imune and a disease wich would kill all humans is not realy a good tactic for the virus/bacteria from an evolutionary point of vieuw. I hope you're not implying Aliens. To the other point: I would argue differently. Look at the conflict between Pakistan and India. There have been many occasions in the last two decades where a nuclear war between those countries was almost inevitable. One of the main reasons for the hatred between those countries is Kashmir. Kashmir is located at the border of Pakistan and India and is the largest resource of fresh water in India and Pakistan. Guess what happens if it rains less and if it gets hotter. Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:46 Ghostcom wrote:I will admit this is really not within my field of expertise, but: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120409103253.htmAlso some of the scenarios to the best of my belief suggest desert expansion as well as colder and longer winters in the northern countries in Europe due to the impact of no more Gulf-stream. I am happy to be proven wrong, but even in that case, the push for sustainable energy is not going to be wasted as suggest by the post I initially replied to. We would also need sustainable energy for our spaceshuttles as well as where we would eventually settle. According to NASA the Gulf stream is not slowing down. Source
I was under the impression that it would be a threshold thing? Again, not really my specialty, but I know it is in some of the scenarios considered realistic, thus probably shouldn't be written off.
|
On August 08 2013 04:46 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 04:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 08 2013 04:41 Feartheguru wrote:On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote:Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur. The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable. Which, by the way, is essentially impossible. We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant. The science is settled huh? Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat? Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
