|
On January 25 2013 00:52 Recognizable wrote:
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.
You mean you only care about humans, and none other lifeforms on earth?
|
greed and money owns us, thus we will continue to destroy our planet and do things which is not in the best interest of the butterflies and bee's etc.. so yes we are a plague but nothing will change, Maybe in 150 years when shit starts to get really fucked up but by then it will be to late and i wont be here!
|
On January 25 2013 00:52 Recognizable wrote:
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.
The issue is things need to be done for the earth as a whole, not for humanity. We are one cog in the machine that needs to run this place. We need the other things on this planet to be healthy and whole for us to be healthy and whole. What benefits the earth will benefit us in the long run.
|
We wouldn't of gotten where we are today without technology, Stuff will get figured out it'll just take some smart people that aren't puppets to the 'man'.
|
On January 25 2013 00:35 r.Evo 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. 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.
S:klogW pretty much nailed it in his post above somewhere. We are not a part of any natural order. We are an accident, a freak of evolution. Because we are born with a consciousness. To keep with the theme here, I'll refer to the lions and zebras again. They don't know that they're alive and they don't know that they will die. They just are. They hunt, eat, fuck, sleep, tend to their young, rinse and repeat. We, on the other hand, are plagued (the plague is plagued, imagine that, how much more pathogenic can we get?) with consciousness. We do know that we are alive, and we are very aware of the fact that we will die one day. And somehow, some way, in our toxic little brains, this fact translates to an uncontrollable desire to expand and gather and amass. Wealth, experience, relationships and all that good stuff. And it doesn't matter what is standing in our way of achieving all these things. We'll cut it up, down, whatever direction, it'll have to go.
To your question about the worst case: 99% of life dying might not be a huge problem for the planet. It certainly is a problem for all the other mammals, invertebrates, fish, reptiles etc. that are forced to share this world with us. Are we really so bleeding arrogant that we hypothesize near total annihilation of all life forms on this planet and our comment is "it's not a problem for the planet itself, so who cares?".
|
On January 25 2013 00:54 r.Evo wrote:
Birth rates are going down. .
Are you kidding me? Compared to what? To last year, or last 5 years? How about last 100 or 1000 years?
|
Austria24417 Posts
On January 25 2013 00:56 fugs wrote:
We wouldn't of gotten where we are today without technology, Stuff will get figured out it'll just take some smart people that aren't puppets to the 'man'.
The real question should be if where we are today is actually a good place or if we went wrong somewhere.
|
|
|
On January 25 2013 00:52 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:40 Hryul wrote: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.
And how is this important in the "grand scheme" of things? To completely annihilate life on earth one of three things must happen: sun goes dark, atmosphere gets blown into space and earth blows up enterily. (Maybe earth's orbit changes drastically). Everything else is just a nuisance for life on this planet.
|
That people still continue to argue that what humans are doing to nature is natural impoverishes my soul and makes me lose faith in all the years I`m spending at school.
In 5000/1000000/30 billion/ 102 gazillion (no matter how you count it) years that nature has been such, predators have always hunted preys, herbivores have always helped themselves on the vegetation of Earth, and climactic shifts and other factors not directly related to this "food chain" ecosystem may tip the balance one way or another, but on their own, sabreteeth tigers have hunted ice age herbivores (mammoths?) in the same manner that lions eat zebras. The total equation remains the same. What humans, on the other hand, have done only in the last 100 years or so have an astronomically exponentially greater impact that what has happened before. Deforestation, increasing desertification due to carbon emission, unarable land due to overfarming and soil damaging fertilizers, you name it, we have done it if it aims to disrupt this balance. And we call ourselves Sapiens. Homo Retardens is more likely.
^^ Thanks KNICK for expounding on the "consciousness" thing.
|
On January 25 2013 00:55 La1 wrote:
greed and money owns us, thus we will continue to destroy our planet and do things which is not in the best interest of the butterflies and bee's etc.. so yes we are a plague but nothing will change, Maybe in 150 years when shit starts to get really fucked up but by then it will be to late and i wont be here!
Why do you keep saying "we"? Are you destroying the planet? Why is all of humanity collectively culpable for the crimes of oil companies owned by a tiny fraction?
Oil companies rape the ecosystem so therefore humanity is a plague? Not even close man. This type of thinking is self-loathing and quite honestly pisses me off. Since when did it become hip to hate on humanity? IT'S A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO DO 99% OF THE DAMAGE TO THE PLANET!!!
|
Austria24417 Posts
On January 25 2013 01:07 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:55 La1 wrote:
greed and money owns us, thus we will continue to destroy our planet and do things which is not in the best interest of the butterflies and bee's etc.. so yes we are a plague but nothing will change, Maybe in 150 years when shit starts to get really fucked up but by then it will be to late and i wont be here!
Why do you keep saying "we"? Are you destroying the planet? Why is all of humanity collectively culpable for the crimes of oil companies owned by a tiny fraction? Oil companies rape the ecosystem so therefore humanity is a plague? Not even close man. This type of thinking is self-loathing and quite honestly pisses me off. Since when did it become hip to hate on humanity? IT'S A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO DO 99% OF THE DAMAGE TO THE PLANET!!!
Even if you're just 1% of the problem, you're still 100% responsible. Yeah some do more damage than others but just by going to work every day you're being part of the problem.
|
On January 25 2013 00:57 KNICK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:35 r.Evo wrote: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. 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. S:klogW pretty much nailed it in his post above somewhere. We are not a part of any natural order. We are an accident, a freak of evolution. Because we are born with a consciousness. To keep with the theme here, I'll refer to the lions and zebras again. They don't know that they're alive and they don't know that they will die. They just are. They hunt, eat, fuck, sleep, tend to their young, rinse and repeat. We, on the other hand, are plagued (the plague is plagued, imagine that, how much more pathogenic can we get?) with consciousness. We do know that we are alive, and we are very aware of the fact that we will die one day. And somehow, some way, in our toxic little brains, this fact translates to an uncontrollable desire to expand and gather and amass. Wealth, experience, relationships and all that good stuff. And it doesn't matter what is standing in our way of achieving all these things. We'll cut it up, down, whatever direction, it'll have to go. To your question about the worst case: 99% of life dying might not be a huge problem for the planet. It certainly is a problem for all the other mammals, invertebrates, fish, reptiles etc. that are forced to share this world with us. Are we really so bleeding arrogant that we hypothesize near total annihilation of all life forms on this planet and our comment is "it's not a problem for the planet itself, so who cares?".
Animals don't know that they're alive? Animals don't know that they will die? Animals aren't afraid of death? That's some thin ice you're on.
There is no "freak of evolution", just like cancer or AIDS aren't unnatural. The biological goal of a human is precisely the same as that of an animal, again the only difference is scale. Animals seek pleasure and try to avoid pain, just like humans.
Fun sidenote: The plain fact that you're trying to tell me how horrible "humans in general" are is just proving my point. 100 years ago no one would have given a damn - not sure how you're unable to understand that precisely this is part of humans adopting to their surrounding for the "better" of other species involved.
On January 25 2013 00:58 NightOfTheDead wrote:Are you kidding me? Compared to what? To last year, or last 5 years? How about last 100 or 1000 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate
|
On January 25 2013 00:55 NightOfTheDead wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:52 Recognizable wrote:
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. You mean you only care about humans, and none other lifeforms on earth?
So if you had to decide to safe one human or two cute little pups, you wouldn't safe the human?
|
Austria24417 Posts
On January 25 2013 01:11 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:55 NightOfTheDead wrote:On January 25 2013 00:52 Recognizable wrote:
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. You mean you only care about humans, and none other lifeforms on earth? So if you had to decide to safe one human or two cute little pups, you wouldn't safe the human?
That's not comparable whatsoever. The human species requires the existence of other species or we wouldn't survive.
|
I think humankind is still an insect on the planet's surface. I mean the Earth has got a history of huge extinction events. The most recent one, K-Pg extinction, led to all (nearly) species lager than a small dog to become extinct. The real world is a dangerous place. Even the most brutal things humanity can do to the Earth is nothing compared to what the Earth can do to itself or the space can do (asteroids, Sun activity).
P.S. Marine extinction intensity during phanerozoic eon
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Extinction_intensity.svg/320px-Extinction_intensity.svg.png)
|
I know Attenborough is going to be harshly attacked for his views but I agree with him in some aspects. I've always felt that giving constant food aid without birth control to poor nations is a disastrous policy.
Take an example- you have some arid land which can barely sustain 100 people. The people living there have children, some of them die off and the population stays around the same. It's sad but that's nature at work. When people from outside start giving food aid then all of those people survive and multiply and multiply again. The land hasn't become any less arid and they still have no way to sustain themselves and what's more they have even become dependent on the aid. The food aid actually exacerbates the problem as it creates a bigger and bigger population with less and less chance to feed themselves.
I know this sounds lacking in compassion but as the Earth's population grows and grows and grows at some point we are going to have to be a bit more hard-hearted and start tying food aid to birth control. Yes we have developed ways to feed more people but that doesn't mean population growth can continue unchecked forever without causing serious problems. In some of the poor countries the average fertility rate for women is at around 9 now. If, because of food and medical aid all of those children survive and go on to have that many children of their own how quickly will these countries' populations grow? Overpopulation is a problem that is not politically correct to talk about, but eventually it will only cause more wars, famines, water shortages and environmental destruction. Food aid is a good short-term solution and I'm not saying it should be stopped but it needs to go hand-in-hand with birth control and sustainability as a long-term solution.
Birth control has other benefits as well. it gives women more time to pursue work and education and allows parents to focus more resources on the development of their children.
And of course this is not to say that those of us in wealthier nations don't need to also try to consume less as well, but it's time we stopped being so PC on this issue and reexamined the way we give aid, and figure out how to be compassionate but not contribute to overpopulating the world.
|
On January 25 2013 01:08 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 01:07 TricksAre4Figs wrote:On January 25 2013 00:55 La1 wrote:
greed and money owns us, thus we will continue to destroy our planet and do things which is not in the best interest of the butterflies and bee's etc.. so yes we are a plague but nothing will change, Maybe in 150 years when shit starts to get really fucked up but by then it will be to late and i wont be here!
Why do you keep saying "we"? Are you destroying the planet? Why is all of humanity collectively culpable for the crimes of oil companies owned by a tiny fraction? Oil companies rape the ecosystem so therefore humanity is a plague? Not even close man. This type of thinking is self-loathing and quite honestly pisses me off. Since when did it become hip to hate on humanity? IT'S A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO DO 99% OF THE DAMAGE TO THE PLANET!!! Even if you're just 1% of the problem, you're still 100% responsible.
I don't even understand this retard logic. I never said otherwise. I'm saying stop hating on humanity as a collective whole simply because oil companies ferociously destroy the ecosystem to maintain their massive profits. Use your brain and think the issue through instead of throwing out stupid fucking platitudes about "humanity is a plague".
|
On January 25 2013 01:08 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:57 KNICK wrote:On January 25 2013 00:35 r.Evo wrote: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. 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. S:klogW pretty much nailed it in his post above somewhere. We are not a part of any natural order. We are an accident, a freak of evolution. Because we are born with a consciousness. To keep with the theme here, I'll refer to the lions and zebras again. They don't know that they're alive and they don't know that they will die. They just are. They hunt, eat, fuck, sleep, tend to their young, rinse and repeat. We, on the other hand, are plagued (the plague is plagued, imagine that, how much more pathogenic can we get?) with consciousness. We do know that we are alive, and we are very aware of the fact that we will die one day. And somehow, some way, in our toxic little brains, this fact translates to an uncontrollable desire to expand and gather and amass. Wealth, experience, relationships and all that good stuff. And it doesn't matter what is standing in our way of achieving all these things. We'll cut it up, down, whatever direction, it'll have to go. To your question about the worst case: 99% of life dying might not be a huge problem for the planet. It certainly is a problem for all the other mammals, invertebrates, fish, reptiles etc. that are forced to share this world with us. Are we really so bleeding arrogant that we hypothesize near total annihilation of all life forms on this planet and our comment is "it's not a problem for the planet itself, so who cares?". Animals don't know that they're alive? Animals don't know that they will die? Animals aren't afraid of death? That's some thin ice you're on. There is no "freak of evolution", just like cancer or AIDS aren't unnatural. The biological goal of a human is precisely the same as that of an animal, again the only difference is scale. Animals seek pleasure and try to avoid pain, just like humans. Fun sidenote: The plain fact that you're trying to tell me how horrible "humans in general" are is just proving my point. 100 years ago no one would have given a damn - not sure how you're unable to understand that precisely this is part of humans adopting to their surrounding for the "better" of other species involved. Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 00:58 NightOfTheDead wrote:On January 25 2013 00:54 r.Evo wrote:
Birth rates are going down. . Are you kidding me? Compared to what? To last year, or last 5 years? How about last 100 or 1000 years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate
Funny that we are all Germans here (including Hryul) debating this thing.
I will focus on your reply. You underestimate the "scale" that you are talking about. We are manipulating and changing the balance of the food chain in irreversible ways. Agricultural, oil mining, mineral mining, fishing, etc. practices today are not designed to leave something for the generation of the future, maybe as soon as the next 20 years.
|
I agree with what he is saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
