Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

we can still live in the past with the dead people...

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.

Illogically put.

We have several problems confronting us, all related to the environment.

Now what moral judgment you want to attach to those is up to you, but, I think what was said earlier about overpopulation is really the elephant in the room (in your view).

I don't see what stake you have in your opinion, other than trying to evade guilt or be contrarian.

...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.

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....

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 .

But you are just assuming not only the correctness of environmental hysteria, but that it is either dying or else destroying the economy of the United States, the industrial countries, and making a wholesale transfer of wealth to China and India who don't seem to be as hysterical as you are.

CarbonSystem wrote:

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.

But you are just assuming not only the correctness of environmental hysteria, but that it is either dying or else destroying the economy of the United States, the industrial countries, and making a wholesale transfer of wealth to China and India who don't seem to be as hysterical as you are. Don't you think there might be a compromise, or are you a religious fanatic about the environment. "Repent or die!" But that's religion. It isn't science or economics. Get a grip.

rosborne979 wrote:

...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.

Yea, this is just kind of how humans are. We've been doing this forever and I see no reason for it to ever stop. How or when it will end; I can't say. I'm at the point where the whole environmental damage issue is just depressing. Its like, no one cares...

jgweed wrote:

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?

Nice - probably the best use of The Wager I've seen.

kennethamy wrote:

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....

Good point, and I think its precisely because of the costs (and pains) associated that we've not done much - as a species - to lower our consumption footprint. But they're not getting any cheaper, and whether the damage is now slight or heavy, as resources become more rare (and costs become higher and more countries industrialize), it'll never be as easy as it is right now (barring massive, breakthrough technologies). I wonder when will it be time to take that bitter pill, or if we'll even know it when time comes.

farmerman wrote:

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 .

Yea, and when one considers how much lower the U.S. population is, and how much damage it DID do through these phases, I can only imagine what effect China/India growth will have if they go through all we have... wow!

kennethamy wrote:

But you are just assuming not only the correctness of environmental hysteria, but that it is either dying or else destroying the economy of the United States, the industrial countries, and making a wholesale transfer of wealth to China and India who don't seem to be as hysterical as you are.

You talked about the Hysteria, and I'm not sure others got a really good point in there; That the more something is hyped or painted as immediate "OMG the world'z blowing up!" the less credible it'll be viewed. So whether we feel it to be immediate and urgent, we do this cause injustice by not painting it in a reasonable, low-keyed fashion. I believe some adherents and media outlets have taken up the environmental story and hyped it SO much (like always seems to be the case) that its backfiring. In any case..

Environmental problems are very high on my concern list, and they have been for a long, long time. I've been enjoying, for a long time, a LOT of documentaries (daily) for about the last 10 years (since I can't seem to tolerate any other kind of TV entertainment any more) and I can say with confidence that we are damaging our atmosphere, oceans, other species and other natural resources regularly and on a massive scale. Whether there's enough time to turn back Global Warming or any other problem, I can't say. I do know this: Human nature is such that any plea of doom and gloom will be met with large and concerted, "Nah, you're just blowing smoke"-response.

I find the whole issue depressing. But what it might take to fix our environmental problems I find to be generally contrary to human nature. So whether sooner or later, this train of waste, depletion and just *isn't* going to stop - not voluntarily anyway.

Thanks all

But is is true that either we take these draconian measures which may make us return to the horse and buggy (and the environmental consequences of all that horse poop in the streets) or the death of the planet will result. Are we faced with those two extremes? Maybe that is what Algore and his followers think, but then, they are idiots.

And besides, what about my question: if India and China (and Brazil) are exempted from taking any steps on the ground that they have to catch up first, then what is the point of our doing anything so draconian, since it will do no good anyway, except to transfer our wealth to India and China, so that when we all die, they will be rich and we will be poor? I don't get it. Do you?

Why we think now after a little over 100 years of heavy industry we're destroying the planet, is beyond me.

kennethamy wrote:

But is is true that either we take these draconian measures which may make us return to the horse and buggy (and the environmental consequences of all that horse poop in the streets) or the death of the planet will result. Are we faced with those two extremes? Maybe that is what Algore and his followers think, but then, they are idiots.

No I don't think we're faced with a choice of only those two extremes. There's a wide latitude in which to respond. We like, though, to respond proportionately to the immediacy of the threat; and if we can't agree on just how urgent it is then given the way people in mobs tend to think, they end up only seeing one or the other.

I am curious Kenn; To what draconian measures are you referring? I've seen quite a bit of ideas tossed about.

kennethamy wrote:

And besides, what about my question: if India and China (and Brazil) are exempted from taking any steps on the ground that they have to catch up first, then what is the point of our doing anything so draconian, since it will do no good anyway, except to transfer our wealth to India and China, so that when we all die, they will be rich and we will be poor? I don't get it. Do you?

No, I don't see the reason in that either. Unfortunately, human beings can't unite enough to make a concerted effort that makes much sense at all. Piecemeal here, half-ass there and in other places still: no response at all.

In my perfect world, we'd have as our priorities being a Human before being <insert nationality here>. But petty squabbles born of competitiveness "Us -vs- Them" bar us from responding in-kind to these issues. Hysteria jumps one way, then swings back another.

Smaller footprint of destruction per person or less people. And we're blind to what urgency with which to respond to one and loathe to take that other road. Its funny... of all I see and learn about the environment - particularly of the awesome and precious species of life we have on this planet - I keep having this one thought come to mind: Gosh, I hope they take lots of pictures while they can. Hysteria? Not from me - Concern? You bet

Thanks

Yeah I know, sigh. But we should be looking at the long term effects, that's the smart thing to do.

Smaller footprint of destruction per person or less people. And we're blind to what urgency with which to respond to one and loathe to take that other road. Its funny... of all I see and learn about the environment - particularly of the awesome and precious species of life we have on this planet - I keep having this one thought come to mind: Gosh, I hope they take lots of pictures while they can. Hysteria? Not from me - Concern? You bet

A focus on cleaning up the planet will come naturally once people are freed from the immediate concerns of short term survival.

Khethil wrote:

Smaller footprint of destruction per person or less people. And we're blind to what urgency with which to respond to one and loathe to take that other road. Its funny... of all I see and learn about the environment - particularly of the awesome and precious species of life we have on this planet - I keep having this one thought come to mind: Gosh, I hope they take lots of pictures while they can. Hysteria? Not from me - Concern? You bet

It is strange that people don't consider that hundreds of thousands of species have gone extinct over the course of this planet's 4.5 billion year existence, the vast majority well before our species even existed. In fact well over 95% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct.Do people really believe we played a role in even a marginal number of these extinctions? That's hilarious.

Let's put this in perspective: Life has been on this earth for somewhere between 3-3.5 billion years. Our species has been around for a little over 200,000 years according to what evidence we have, and we've only been dominating the ecosystems for maybe the last 3,000. How much impact do these people really think we've made? The vast majority of species die regardless of our actions, as they have for millennium. It's nature. Nature, and species non-human, have, and still, play a greater role in extinctions, even though these nutcases like to dramatize our effect.

That said, there is evidence that we are now, within the last 100 years, playing a larger role in extinctions - and hence all these endangered specie organizations. But it's certainly nothing that alarming, and, in fact, most of it is to be expected.

rosbourne979 wrote:

A focus on cleaning up the planet will come naturally once people are freed from the immediate concerns of short term survival.

Yes, let us tell the starving children of the world to free their concerns of short-term survival. That'll clean up this planet in no time.