Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.

Im not exaggerating Ken, it's the truth, people are told that when on holiday to watch out for floaters. I think it's a shame.

No I don't talk as if it's the end of the world I said we are destroying the ocean, ie the planet, it is part of the planet Ken and that it'll bite us on the bum and it should not be made a joke of as it is a serious matter, thank you.

I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.

But are we not in a similar position to "Pascal's Wager" in that we know that our influence upon the ecological system is growing apace, and that while we are currently unsure about its consequences, we cannot take the chance that at some point in time, our actions can become the cause of very serious consequences to the world in which we live?

Even if we cannot be absolutely certain that human activity poses such a dire threat, isn't it reasonable to err on the side of caution?

Short term survival trumps long term survival.

I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.

Caroline wrote:

I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.

How does that mean we are "destroying the planet"? Incredible exaggeration only hurts your case because when people find out that you are exaggerating wildly, you lose credibility. Why environmentalists don't realize that, I simply don't know. But I think I can make a good guess. Exaggeration and deceit is why "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever is the flavor of the month, has lost any urgency it ever had, and it is now treated as one large yawn, and even as a joke.

Caroline wrote:

No I don't talk as if it's the end of the world I said we are destroying the ocean, ie the planet, it is part of the planet Ken and that it'll bite us on the bum and it should not be made a joke of as it is a serious matter, thank you.

First of all, the ocean is not the same as the planet. Second of all, no one is destroying the ocean. And, third of all, it is your confusing the ocean with the planet, and exaggeration about destroying the ocean because of environmental problems that need fixing, that causes jokes to be made about environmentalists, and environmentalism. It is your fault (along with that of Al Gore and other loonys) that have led to the loss of interest in what is a serious problem. Maybe if environmentalists sobered up, they could restore some of the credibility they have lost by being drunk.

jgweed wrote:

But are we not in a similar position to "Pascal's Wager" in that we know that our influence upon the ecological system is growing apace, and that while we are currently unsure about its consequences, we cannot take the chance that at some point in time, our actions can become the cause of very serious consequences to the world in which we live?

Even if we cannot be absolutely certain that human activity poses such a dire threat, isn't it reasonable to err on the side of caution?

Well, that of course depends on a cost/benefit analysis. What kinds of measures have to be taken, and how draconian will they be, measured against the probability (whatever it is) of our not taking draconian measures, but more moderate measures? It is not reasonable to err on the side of caution if erring on the side of caution means the loss of many jobs and an economic depression, as well as a reversion to our standard of living 75 years ago or so. That would be most unreasonable. Particularly, if the greatest polluters, China and India, are exempted from those measures and allowed to go their own merry way and benefit, while it is the United States that assumes the cost. I would hardly consider that reasonable. I would consider that insane.