|
On January 25 2013 00:26 KNICK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote:
He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame. That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. Lions do not crap thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and neither do they reshape the face of nature in such a devastating way as we do. Lions kill zebras, yes. They do not, however, cut down entire forests and thereby rob already endangered species of their natural habitats. They do not poison entire swaths of land in an effort of "agricultural pest control and/or fertilization" and inadvertently kill everything in and around the area. They do not hunt whales, birds, deer, zebras, tuna, seals etc. all at the same time to the point of driving some of these animals to the brink of extinction and beyond. Lions and zebras are part of a natural food chain. Humans have taken a step outside that food chain and are taking whatever the hell they want from wherever the hell they want. And they don't do it in moderation, oh no. Just google "exctinct by humans" or something of the sort and then examine your comparison of the havoc we cause to lions killing zebras again. It might not hold up so well.
Humans are part of the exact same "natural food chain" as any other living organism on this planet. Pretending they're anything but probably makes the whole situation much more terrifying than it actually is, that's where your initial point already fails.
Assuming we don't blow up the planet, what's the actual super worst case? Humans die with 99% of life on earth. That in itself is not a problem for the planet itself or life in general, it's just going to boil down to a question of time. A much more likely scenario however is that our population eventually starts regulating itself, just like the way we interact with the ecosystem in general regulates itself. Why does it do that? Because it's all part of the same system.
|
On January 24 2013 23:39 maybenexttime wrote:
My opinion? He watched too much of The Matrix.
I was saying the same stuff as a ten year old, before the Matrix was filmed. It's not a difficult concept. In a lot of ways it's really obvious.
|
On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote:
He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame. That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way.
What stupid nonsensical bullshit is this? You miss the entire thing about nature and equilibrium - that is, nature always exists and thrives to balance itself, EXCEPT humans. This means that everything in nature, in their natural state, are sustainable to the ecosystem. Lions will eat zebras but just enough for both the animals to exists sustainable. A herd of wildebeast eat an awful amount of grass but it always manages to go back next season. Even in extreme cases of infestation or animals being brought to new environment where the become pests (like the Thai catfish scare in North America in the 70s or 80s, rat infestation during the Age of Exploration), nature always manages to balance things, given an endangerment or extinction of some species here and there. But hey that is nature, and in the grand scheme of this, the important fact is that things are in equilibrium.
Humans, on the other hand, have this thing called "intelligence/consciousness" which he uses to want more, to choose to eat more even when he is already full (see, I have never seen a glutton cat or dog, unless they are trained and left overfed by humans). At the rate things are going, humans will wipe everything from the face of the Earth. Unless some black swan event or something totally outlier hits (ice age, new viral strain, etc.) and nature just decides to erase humans first.
|
On January 25 2013 00:26 KNICK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote:
He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame. That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. Lions do not crap thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and neither do they reshape the face of nature in such a devastating way as we do. Lions kill zebras, yes. They do not, however, cut down entire forests and thereby rob already endangered species of their natural habitats. They do not poison entire swaths of land in an effort of "agricultural pest control and/or fertilization" and inadvertently kill everything in and around the area. They do not hunt whales, birds, deer, zebras, tuna, seals etc. all at the same time to the point of driving some of these animals to the brink of extinction and beyond. Lions and zebras are part of a natural food chain. Humans have taken a step outside that food chain and are taking whatever the hell they want from wherever the hell they want. And they don't do it in moderation, oh no. Just google "exctinct by humans" or something of the sort and then examine your comparison of the havoc we cause to lions killing zebras again. It might not hold up so well.
Yet you fail to provide a reason why this is bad "for the planet". Earth itself is just a rock floating in space. It has no soul, no consciousness and no feel for pain. Even if we nuked the entire world, Earth wouldn't care because it can't.
Over the years there would and will be organisms who would be able to deal with the higher % of CO_2 in the atmosphere. Unless we blow away our entire atmosphere, life will continue.
The real reason why cutting down the rain forest is bad, is because we deprive ourself from Oxygen supply we desperately need. But don't confuse our need with the need of the ecosystem or "the planet itself".
|
|
|
Austria24417 Posts
On January 25 2013 00:31 Aphasie wrote:
To be honest I dont think the world has any meaning outside of human existence. The "pretty" and "beautiful" moments/parts are just constructs of the human mind and in my opinion hold little value outside the realm of consciousness. For instance the vast mountains and chasms the mountain goats traverse on a daily basis are mind boggling to us, but the goats simply act on instinct. Some things like fear, anxiety, curiosity and perhaps even love might exist outside the human realm, but the powers of abstraction and logic trumps any comparison.
We probably should work for a sustainable earth, but simply because its in our self interest. We dont owe "mother earth" jack shit. However saving species, landscapes, etc is like saving something pretty and unique. Its basically saving our own history.
Sustainability, yes.
Plague of the earth, i can see your argument.
Should human kill themselves to "save the planet"? No, stop being retarded. We are the planet - now piss off!
my 2 cents
About -10 btw.
So your 2 cents are a) we don't owe this world jack shit and b) we are the world.
=> we don't owe ourselves jack shit? Why don't we start jumping out of windows then? I'm pretty sure you got something wrong there. We wouldn't exist without this planet. You make it sound like it wouldn't exist without us.
|
On January 25 2013 00:26 KNICK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote:
He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame. That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. Lions do not crap thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and neither do they reshape the face of nature in such a devastating way as we do. Lions kill zebras, yes. They do not, however, cut down entire forests and thereby rob already endangered species of their natural habitats. They do not poison entire swaths of land in an effort of "agricultural pest control and/or fertilization" and inadvertently kill everything in and around the area. They do not hunt whales, birds, deer, zebras, tuna, seals etc. all at the same time to the point of driving some of these animals to the brink of extinction and beyond. Lions and zebras are part of a natural food chain. Humans have taken a step outside that food chain and are taking whatever the hell they want from wherever the hell they want. And they don't do it in moderation, oh no. Just google "extinct by humans" or something of the sort and then examine your comparison of the havoc we cause to lions killing zebras again. It might not hold up so well.
Thanks. This is a better explanation that my reply to his stupid post.
|
I'm always bothered by these predictions of how the world will look like in 50 years or so. No one has a clue as to what kind of technologies we will discover, and thus one cannot honestly say we're overpopulating. We're only overpopulating given our current tech level, but humanity has always found a way out so far. Given sufficient pressure, I'm sure we'll be creative enough to find another solution.
|
Meh, if humans tip the biosphere into some unsustainable death spiral resulting in a mass extinction it's not like everything's going to die. Surely we will, but in a few million years evolution will bring about a new age. Maybe dino 2.0, who knows?
|
On January 25 2013 00:32 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:25 Chocobo wrote:On January 25 2013 00:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 25 2013 00:05 Nekovivie wrote:On January 25 2013 00:02 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Like it's something new, lol. The human species has been damaging earth for centuries. And it's not getting better with all the nuclear nonsense we got going on. Ironically, nuclear clean energy is the way forward. Sure! What isn't the way forward though is using technology we can't control. And we can't fucking control nuclear energy reliably. That's why Chernobyl happened and that's why Fukushima happened. Pretty sure those incidents didn't exactly have positive impacts on this planet. And it's gonna happen again. We're effectively messing with an ecosystem that designed itself to work. But intelligent as the human race is, rain forests are being exploited, gas and oil are being exploited, animals are being exploited, plants are being mutated so a few people can make more money, AND SO ON. It's short sighted and it's dumb and that's exactly why the human species is a cancer to this planet. We're just going to have to get better at controlling it, because without nuclear energy it might be hopeless. It's arguably worth having instances like Fukushima had, if it can continue to bring us cheap energy post-oil. I'm not exactly educated on this subject except for basic high school chemistry education but it just seems impossible to me to ever control that reliably. It's a process that is obviously natural in some form but we're taking that to an extreme to produce an enourmous amount of energy.
The Fukushima disaster happened because of the massive earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan in 2011. They were prepared to be ready to handle a certain level of natural disaster, but not something that massive. Nuclear energy is very safe most of the time... it's just the rare exceptions when things get scary.
There have been only 8 serious nuclear power plant accidents in the past 20 years. Only 3 of them resulted in deaths, killing a combined 7 people. Virtually anything that can cause death (lightning strikes, a punch inside a boxing ring) is more dangerous than this.
The problem is the potential of a major disaster of huge proportions is there. It might be extremely unlikely, to the point where a terrorist attack is the only realistic way it could happen... but the threat of a nuclear disaster that harms tens of thousands of people is a possibility, and that simply scares people.
|
Populations are ultimately limited by food supply. Once the food supply is maxed out then the population simply cannot grow any more. SC2 actually has this feature with their concept of Supply limiting units. Redistribution of food (sharing/rationing) can help but people need minimum calorie intake to survive.
Current food production techniques are dependent on pesticides which are a result of the petro-chemical industry. As the oil dries up over the next few decades or sooner then there will be significant challenges for Agriculture to overcome in order to maintain harvest yields without these pesticides. Alternatives will have to be found or food production capabilities will decline. A probable future option is wide-spread implementation of GM Crops to add robustness to crops and boost harvest yields. I expect GM crops to be phased in over time and objections to it overcome by introducing GM crops with health benefits.
|
Austria24417 Posts
It's like when terran stays on one base for too long - other, more natural races have a more sustainable way of life (staying on one base). Terrans (the human species) are breaking that natural ecosystem by inventing shit and taking a step outside that natural chain only to exploit ressources faster (MULEs). Yeah terran has the strongest one base army the quickest but in the end, they mine out faster and leave nothing but devastation behind.
Bottom line - we should one rax expand. Eh, I guess we should start looking for planets with more ressources.
|
Population control is already being implemented in numerous ways. Btw do you really think this guy cares about Ethiopians?
|
I can't believe there are people that think we haven't stepped outside of the food chain. We've created elaborate and massive artificial food chains that only survive by our hands. There is too much faith in technology and not enough reverence for the natural process imo
|
we were fucked from the get go. our lizard part of the brain hasn't evolved fast enough to tell right from wrong.
|
Old news, agent Smith said it first.
|
On January 25 2013 00:40 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:26 KNICK wrote:On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote:
He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame. That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. Lions do not crap thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and neither do they reshape the face of nature in such a devastating way as we do. Lions kill zebras, yes. They do not, however, cut down entire forests and thereby rob already endangered species of their natural habitats. They do not poison entire swaths of land in an effort of "agricultural pest control and/or fertilization" and inadvertently kill everything in and around the area. They do not hunt whales, birds, deer, zebras, tuna, seals etc. all at the same time to the point of driving some of these animals to the brink of extinction and beyond. Lions and zebras are part of a natural food chain. Humans have taken a step outside that food chain and are taking whatever the hell they want from wherever the hell they want. And they don't do it in moderation, oh no. Just google "exctinct by humans" or something of the sort and then examine your comparison of the havoc we cause to lions killing zebras again. It might not hold up so well. Yet you fail to provide a reason why this is bad "for the planet". Earth itself is just a rock floating in space. It has no soul, no consciousness and no feel for pain. Even if we nuked the entire world, Earth wouldn't care because it can't. Over the years there would and will be organisms who would be able to deal with the higher % of CO_2 in the atmosphere. Unless we blow away our entire atmosphere, life will continue. The real reason why cutting down the rain forest is bad, is because we deprive ourself from Oxygen supply we desperately need. But don't confuse our need with the need of the ecosystem or "the planet itself".
lol is it stupid hour already?
First someone tries to equate lions killing zebra to what humans do.
And now you saying cutting down rainforest is "bad" because of oxygen?
I am ashamed to even be on the same planet as you two. Cutting down rainforests is bad because you disturb the natural ecosystem, composed of hundreds id not thousands of life forms, which in turn are involved in thousands upon thousands of natural processes.
And try "bad for the planet" in the sense that either a) the planet will not be able to reproduce b) the planet, through natural and reactionary process, will kill humans.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I don't really understand why the people that talk about the changing climate always like to emphasize how terrible we are for the earth. The earth is just a big stone. The earth really doesn't give a shit. I believe if we want to raise attention to this issue we have to focus on the fact that it's a problem for us humans, and not for the earth.
|
On January 25 2013 00:38 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote:
He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame. That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. What stupid nonsensical bullshit is this? You miss the entire thing about nature and equilibrium - that is, nature always exists and thrives to balance itself, EXCEPT humans. This means that everything in nature, in their natural state, are sustainable to the ecosystem. Lions will eat zebras but just enough for both the animals to exists sustainable. A herd of wildebeast eat an awful amount of grass but it always manages to go back next season. Even in extreme cases of infestation or animals being brought to new environment where the become pests (like the Thai catfish scare in North America in the 70s or 80s, rat infestation during the Age of Exploration), nature always manages to balance things, given an endangerment or extinction of some species here and there. But hey that is nature, and in the grand scheme of this, the important fact is that things are in equilibrium. Humans, on the other hand, have this thing called "intelligence/consciousness" which he uses to want more, to choose to eat more even when he is already full (see, I have never seen a glutton cat or dog, unless they are trained and left overfed by humans). At the rate things are going, humans will wipe everything from the face of the Earth. Unless some black swan event or something totally outlier hits (ice age, new viral strain, etc.) and nature just decides to erase humans first.
What is this "nature" you talk about that balances things out? When does it "decide" to wipe us out.
And nature is not in a state of equilibrium. The Lions and the Zebras are in a constant process of adaption to the population. It all starts with the amount of available grass for the zebras. They procreate as much as possible. Next the lions hit the floor and hunt as much zebras they can get. Then they procreate as much as possible.
If the weather was good and the amount of grass is higher than last year, the population of zebras will increase, thus making it for lions more likely to catch one, thus enabling them to raise more pups. vice versa if the weather was dry.
There is no balance in nature. Populations rarely stay the same over two or more seasons. Even the climate had natural changes way before Humans started to heaten things up.
And the nail in the coffin for your "balance argument": 95% of all species that ever existed on this planet are extinct. Protip: For most of them, humanity isn't at fault.
|
On January 25 2013 00:38 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:06 r.Evo wrote:On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote:
He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame. That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way. What stupid nonsensical bullshit is this? You miss the entire thing about nature and equilibrium - that is, nature always exists and thrives to balance itself, EXCEPT humans. This means that everything in nature, in their natural state, are sustainable to the ecosystem. Lions will eat zebras but just enough for both the animals to exists sustainable. A herd of wildebeast eat an awful amount of grass but it always manages to go back next season. Even in extreme cases of infestation or animals being brought to new environment where the become pests (like the Thai catfish scare in North America in the 70s or 80s, rat infestation during the Age of Exploration), nature always manages to balance things, given an endangerment or extinction of some species here and there. But hey that is nature, and in the grand scheme of this, the important fact is that things are in equilibrium. Humans, on the other hand, have this thing called "intelligence/consciousness" which he uses to want more, to choose to eat more even when he is already full (see, I have never seen a glutton cat or dog, unless they are trained and left overfed by humans). At the rate things are going, humans will wipe everything from the face of the Earth. Unless some black swan event or something totally outlier hits (ice age, new viral strain, etc.) and nature just decides to erase humans first.
I don't even know where to start.
It is completely normal for species to get extinct. If a cat or dog has the possibility to eat 24/7 it will do so. The only actual difference between humans and animals is the efficiency at which they are able to do things. If a lion had the capability to make robots that herd zebras, pack their meat into nice packages and have it delivered directly into his mouth he would most certainly do so.
Humans, since they're part of nature like everything else, are balancing themselves with the rest of the system already. The green party in Germany rose from 1.5% of votes in 1980 to 10.7% of votes in 2009. More and more people opt for a vegetarian lifestyle. Birth rates are going down. Cars use less and less fuel. More and more alternative energy sources get exploited. All that is part of adjusting to the "fuck we're too many and we do too much random shit"-problem and it's just the most obvious tip of the iceberg.
The top priority of any individual (or group that is big enough to act similar to an individual) is self-preservation. Humans are no exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
props to him for doing what he has done over the years, amazing documentaries and a voice to match.
