31
   

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

 
 
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:04 am
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.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 31 • Views: 31,761 • Replies: 603

 
kennethamy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:15 am
@Caroline,
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
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:17 am
@kennethamy,
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.
kennethamy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:34 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:

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.


The existence of oil spills and garbage in the ocean is not the same as the destruction of the planet. It is a problem, not doomsday. As I have already pointed out, parading environmental problems as doomsday scenarios only weakens your case. Why you (and others) don't realize that, I simply don't know. People are making jokes about environmentalism now and taking it much less seriously than it deserves because of the wild exaggerations. You have to watch out for floaters, and you talk as if that meant the end of the world.
Caroline
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:37 am
@kennethamy,
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.
kennethamy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:59 am
@Caroline,
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.
rosborne979
 
  4  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 07:00 am
@Caroline,
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.

I'm going to give you an oversimplified answer to this very complex question about human behavior: Short term survival trumps long term survival.

There are lots of details buried in the term"survival" in that answer. Things like "greed" and "safety" are sub-motivations, but at its core the answer is that most people are focused on their personal short term needs over the general long term needs of the population.
Caroline
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 07:15 am
@rosborne979,
Yeah I know, sigh. But we should be looking at the long term effects, that's the smart thing to do.
fresco
 
  4  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 07:37 am
@rosborne979,
I agree with rosbourne. However the "Gaia hypothesis" suggests that ecological systems are more robust than we think. It may take a few million premature deaths of homo sapiens to stabilize the situation, but "the planet" is is likely to survive.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 08:05 am
As has been well said, people have been predicting doomsday the last 1,000 times out of zero.

"One generation goes and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever." Ecclesiastes 1:4
0 Replies
 
jgweed
 
  4  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 08:42 am
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?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 09:18 am
@jgweed,
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.
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 10:19 am
@kennethamy,
The US used to be the greatest pollutor until the growing awareness of pollution and its consequences was monetized. Regs and awareness helped together. Now we have a thriving pollution control industry that can make sewage effluent into water cl eaner than the source that produced it .
China and India must learn the same lesson. There is a growing awareness in both countries of the health and economic consequences of pollution, so the governments aill have to cave and join the flow .
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 10:51 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Short term survival trumps long term survival.
I agree: people respond to necessity. Logic doesn't generally create motivation. It's only useful as a tool.

Obviously the root of many problems is the size of our consumption. Most people I know seek to limit their consumption, but a contradiction appears: economic stability depends on growth.

And isn't this really a global conudrum? We see developing countries making the same mistakes the old core nations did on their way to prosperity.

We need a socioeconomic model that preserves civilization without growth.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 11:31 am
@Caroline,
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.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.

What are you worried about...Only the outside of our planet is being destroyed and even if that happens completely, we can still live in the past with the dead people...
CarbonSystem
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 11:44 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

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.


EXCEPT,
we are destroying the planet.

their is a balance that the earth has found, we knowingly and unknowingly we commit crimes and perversions against it.
global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, is a true and obvious thing. all you need to do is look for a moment at what is happening. animals leave or go extinct. not randomly, and not due to competition, but because natural habitats are eliminated.
ask the polar bear.
or all of the endangered and near extinct species in the rainforests.
or go swim in the gulf of mexico right now.
to deny the human toll on the environment of the earth is a sure sign of someone who needs to wake up. go camping, then live with some indigenous people for a while. after becoming one with nature, their views will change and the light will shine upon their souls!
or something like that
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 11:45 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

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.


is a hand not part of your body?
is salt not part of your soup?
if you put rotten celery into the soup, the whole soup tastes horrid.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 11:49 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

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.


excuse me, but aren't we in the midst of an economic depression caused by BIG OIL, BIG BANKS, COROPORATIONS RUN RAMPANT? Monsters in suits who no doubt hold the same view on the environment as you.

Yes, they would put it down to a cost/benefit scenario.

Who gives a **** about the money when you will die?

Man will take the earth for granted until there is no air left to breath.
This is not an exaggeration, seeing as all the nukes in the US arsenal and abroad could easily put hte world into this state.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 11:53 am
People are the polluters. People are caused by *******. Stop ******* and problem solved. Thank you very much. Please no copper coins as they are now worthless except to those who wait for change on a purchase of $9.99. Probably a piece of junk worth about 50 cents as soon as you're on the street with it.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 12:08 pm
@kennethamy,
Illogically put.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 10:57:13