Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

@kennethamy,

Quote:

You don't think you should tell her she has been taken in when you believe she has been taken in? Why?

Well--I don't know if she has been taken in. If I suspect she might have been is no reason to assume she has. I didn't see the video in question.

And I'm not sure sure that I wish to make beautiful young ladies as cynical as I am because I think it would be exhausting for us chaps if they were.

I much prefer, and admire, Caroline's youthful enthusiasm and, whether the video is faked or not, she is making a general point about all wildlife, which is obviously valid.

And because she has such a lovely name.

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Caroline wrote:

spendius wrote:

I've yet to come accross a propagandist, I was hoping someone would enlighten me a bit more.
Thanks

I think what you mean is that you have failed to come across someone you believe is a propagandist. That is different. (Have you ever listened to commercials on the Telly, or listened to political speeches?).

Nope my sources as I've explained are from people who got no reason to lie, I don't listen to politicians, as if. Can't say I've seen any ads concerning enviromental issues Kenny.

Even if all the polar bears drowned, along with the whales , and the flounder, the planet Earth would not be destroyed. Polar bears, whales, and flounder live on Earth. Their destruction would have no effect on Earth which would go on merrily revolving around the Sun on on its own axis, just as it did before there were polar bears, whales, and flounder. Saying that the destruction of what is on Earth is the destruction of Earth is just another bit of false nonsense.

Scientists have been caught in major fibs just on this topic. What do you think happened at the University in East Anglia? Truth?

Yes, it is a faith for you, and there is no arguing with fervent faith. We can but hold it in awe.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Caroline wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Caroline wrote:

spendius wrote:

I've yet to come accross a propagandist, I was hoping someone would enlighten me a bit more.
Thanks

I think what you mean is that you have failed to come across someone you believe is a propagandist. That is different. (Have you ever listened to commercials on the Telly, or listened to political speeches?).

Nope my sources as I've explained are from people who got no reason to lie, I don't listen to politicians, as if. Can't say I've seen any ads concerning enviromental issues Kenny.

Even if all the polar bears drowned, along with the whales , and the flounder, the planet Earth would not be destroyed. Polar bears, whales, and flounder live on Earth. Their destruction would have no effect on Earth which would go on merrily revolving around the Sun on on its own axis, just as it did before there were polar bears, whales, and flounder. Saying that the destruction of what is on Earth is the destruction of Earth is just another bit of false nonsense.

Scientists have been caught in major fibs just on this topic. What do you think happened at the University in East Anglia? Truth?

Yes, it is a faith for you, and there is no arguing with fervent faith. We can but hold it in awe.

I think that you are taking advantage of the lack of clarity, in the original post, as an opportunity to burn a straw man here. This is exactly the propaganda used by the right wing in opposition to the left wing propaganda.

Neither view is anything liken to objectivity. Our politicians do this very thing all day long, acheiving nothing substantial.
The discussion in this thread is a perfect microcosm of the general argument.
Straw man after straw man, propaganda and dissembly. The real issue at stake never gets presented or argued properly.

The issue at stake is the capacity of the planet earth to support life.
To what extent is the human race affecting that capacity.
What are the short/long term consequences of the human race affect upon that capacity.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
You don't think you should tell her she has been taken in when you believe she has been taken in? Why?

Well--I don't know if she has been taken in. If I suspect she might have been is no reason to assume she has. I didn't see the video in question.

And I'm not sure sure that I wish to make beautiful young ladies as cynical as I am because I think it would be exhausting for us chaps if they were.

I much prefer, and admire, Caroline's youthful enthusiasm and, whether the video is faked or not, she is making a general point about all wildlife, which is obviously valid.

And because she has such a lovely name.

I think that is pretty sexist, and this is a discussion board, not a dating center.

0 Replies

Dave Allen wrote:

So the environmentalist rallying cry of:

"We have to save the planet!"

Is really just easy-to-chant-and-paint-on-banners feelgood shorthand for:

"We are convinced it would be a good idea to conserve the sort of environment we are used to (and that our bodies and societies are developed to cope with) for a variety of ethical, practical and economic reasons."

I suppose the overdramatization is what bothers me. Perhaps if they stated the problems more specifically, I would be more willing to hear them out.

1 Reply

Chumly wrote:

I mean precisely what I said in that humankind will no longer exist as we know it today. Anything is "possible" so your next question has little meaning, however not everything is probable. Change is more probable then no change, witness the last 50 million years of evolution, or even the last 10,000 years of the primates of which humankind belongs.

I'm not seeing what is precise about, "Humankind will no longer exist as we know it today". In fact, it seems vague. All you mean is that humans will undergo some evolutionary change, whatever that may be? But where does the technology come into play? Oh, you think that it will be involved in this evolutionary change?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

No point in attacking the message because you happen not to like the messenger.

Don't mind the messenger - occasionally even read it - but with the knowledge that it is pure infotainment and taking claims seriously without looking carefully at the sources they cite would be foolhardy.

Quote:

Have you any reason to think that bit about drowning polar bears is not a fiction? Or are you another one who thinks that polar bears can't swim?

I'm well aware that polar bears can swim, I'm also aware for them to do so costs energy. So if a polar bear is forced by changes to it's niche to swim more often and for longer periods there is a greater likelihood of polar bears getting exhausted and drowning.

Now, polar bears getting exhausted and drowning happened in the past - but the increasing break up of summer ice in the arctic has meant that in recent years it is an occurance that has happened more regularly and is thought to be a major factor in the drop in numbers of bears.

Quote:

But you are right. Even if both the polsr bears and the whales were drowning (and those are equally likely) it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the planet.

Yes.

It simply contributes to lesser biodiversity in a biosphere we all rely on.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

To the extent that global warming is true, it is not a myth. But the question is: 1. to what extent is it true? and 2. how is it caused? Or do you already know the answers to both those questions too?

1) Consensus is reached within the field that a warming trend is apparant.

2) Easy.

Sunlight hits earth and refracts back into space as infrared (or long wave) radiation.

Certain gasses called greenhouse gasses trap some of the radiation and generate heat.

CO2 is one of the most common of such gasses and traps a greater spectrum of infrared radiation .

Ergo - more CO2 - more heat.

It really is very well understood.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Scientists have been caught in major fibs just on this topic. What do you think happened at the University in East Anglia? Truth?

Well, both US and UK courts have looked into the matter and decided the only criminal activity involved was the theft of the e-mails and resulting slander and libel of the climatologists involved.

The only criticism upheld against the climatologists was that they "could have been more open" about making their data public - but that's bemoaning a culture within certain sections of academia, not an actual crime.

Meanwhile the actual criminals - those who stole and slandered - get off scot free and are even lauded by people like Glenn Beck or the Daily Mail.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I suppose the overdramatization is what bothers me. Perhaps if they stated the problems more specifically, I would be more willing to hear them out.

Well -

Sun emits shortwave radiation.

It reflects off the earth's surface as longwave/infrared radiation.

Certain gasses absorb it.

We like that to a degree. We'd all be like Mars and freeze without such gasses.

However - too much and we'd be getting like Venus, so it's not a great idea to have too much.

CO2 is one of the most common ones, and absorbs a bigger spectrum of infrared than most.

So keeping the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to a given % is good for us all - surely?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Even if both the polsr bears and the whales were drowning (and those are equally likely)

Oh I missed this gem earlier and I think it's worth a bit of a debunk.

A polar bear is a terrestrial mammal, with the dense bones and a relative lack of fat in comparison to a whale. Polar bears do have a bit of blubber - but it is their dense coats that provide them with warmth. It's a decent and strong swimmer - but water is not it's niche. A swimming bear must expend energy to perform the locomotion needed to hold it's head out of water and find a place to rest.

Whales, on the other hand, have masses of blubber for two reasons:

1) Keeps 'em warm.
2) Helps 'em float when they are tired of swimming.

Because water is a whale's niche.

So an exhausted whale floats near the surface whilst an exhausted bear will sink until it reaches water as dense as it is.

So it's not as likely that a whale will drown as it that a bear will drown under the same circumstances. A whale spends its whole life swimming and floating and doesn't drown. Swimming bears eventually get tired, and will drown if no available place to rest out of the water is available.

And with the increasing break up of sea ice continues such places will become harder to find.

0 Replies

@Caroline,

My point is that we've got no right to wipe out other species by raping and ravaging the land, why do we have to chuck raw sewage into the sea when we can just not, why pollute our own environment in the first place, it doesn't make sense, it's not logical. Who gave us permission to play god and wipe out and extinct animals, you wouldn't like it if someone came along and did it to you, do unto others as you would have done to you, we don't have that right, we even treat other humans diabolically, whites sell arms to children in Africa to make a buck and they go on to kill innocent families, we are lucky that we are born in the west. Whether it's truth or fiction, evidence is in your face just check out the floaters in the sea along with the masses of plastic, of course it's going to do damage and if it doesn't stop then we will be extinct. Why not treat the sewage, it seems the sensible thing to do but some countries can't afford it so it boils down to money, how stupid man is. Spendius thanks for the compliment I like my name, that is nice to know. Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread, I really enjoyed myself and got a great response from all of you.
Goodnight Kennathmy.

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

My point is that we've got no right to wipe out other species by raping and ravaging the land, why do we have to chuck raw sewage into the sea when we can just not, why pollute our own environment in the first place, it doesn't make sense, it's not logical.

Well, you're still playing into Ken's hands. "Rape" means to abduct and/or sexually assault - which isn't what we do to the land (erm, well some might, but it's not the reported problem).

There are plenty of cold hard facts and anecdotes to stick to in order to demonstrate how bad things might get if humans don't attempt some sort of moderation of behaviour regarding their environment - so why resort to crying "rape"?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

I didn't mean it in the literal sense, I mean we destroy the rainforests for instance. Countries that have been savaged by famine, lack of health care (the underdevelopemet countries), lands that have been drilled for oil, are a few examples of what I mean by ravaged and raped, perhaps it was the wrong choice of word? I just couldn't think of another word to describe it and picked the worse one.

3 Replies

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

I just couldn't think of another word to describe it and picked the worse one.

Of course - but just as Ken's insistence that the planet isn't being destroyed, or Zetherin's point that he doesn't always see the argument behind the hyperbole, shows - choosing to use the worst possible phrase to describe a matter with plenty of implications both subtle and profound can look like nothing more than empty marketing spiel.

Far better to know what is actually being destroyed/poisoned/retarded by untreated sewage - and talk about that.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Ok.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

You know it didn't feel right when I said it, I just picked up the word from anthor thread.

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

You know it didn't feel right when I said it, I just picked up the word from anthor thread.

It's not about whether it's right or not, it's about getting out of a psychological game - the game of "I can misconstrue your message by taking you literally".

Whereas if you stick to facts - people can't play that game.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Ok, sorry I didn't mean anything by it, I just used it for want of better word really.

0 Replies

@Caroline,

The word is okay in the context it was used. I can justify it.

It derives from the Latin word rapere which meant to take or sieze by force or fraud. Civilisation represents the rape of nature.

It's akin to sadism which actually means the pleasure felt from the observed modifications on the external world produced by the will, or ego, of the observer. It's vicarious aspect is when pleasure is derived from observing such modifications produced by the will, or ego, of others as, for example, buildings, ornamental gardens and trained behaviour in animals.

Gustave Flaubert made a comparison between some "magnificent" pile he came across in his travels with the wing of a bee and one much to the disadvantage of the former.

Such a trait, which some think an instinct since the fall of Adam, when applied to sex is "algolagnia".

Germaine Greer's remark that all men are rapists derives from these sort of considerations as does the feminist chant "romance is rape". Few philosophers will take the matter in hand because of their own sexual activities. A patriarchal system, whilst delivering the benefits of civilisation as well as the drawbacks, has certainly modified womanhood.

I see no reason to object to Caroline's usage except from a basis of misuse of the language.

1 Reply

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know