11
   

Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 05:23 am
https://media.makeameme.org/created/waiting-for-you-59a56f.jpg
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 07:02 am
Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world’s foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens civilization - via The Guardian
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 08:25 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world’s foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens civilization - via The Guardian


This is factually untrue.... it is another example of facts being twisted to meet an ideological narrative.

The actual "fact" is..

Quote:
Ultimately, they found that from 1970 to 2014, the size of vertebrate populations has declined by 60 percent on average. That is absolutely not the same as saying that humans have culled 60 percent of animals—a distinction that the report’s technical supplement explicitly states. “It is not a census of all wildlife but reports how wildlife populations have changed in size,” the authors write.

To understand the distinction, imagine you have three populations: 5,000 lions, 500 tigers, and 50 bears. Four decades later, you have just 4,500 lions, 100 tigers, and five bears (oh my). Those three populations have declined by 10 percent, 80 percent, and 90 percent, respectively—which means an average decline of 60 percent. But the total number of actual animals has gone down from 5,550 to 4,605, which is a decline of just 17 percent.


Facts matter.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 10:18 am
@najmelliw,
Quote:
the drastic impact on the production cycle of necessities such as food and drinks and the like, might well exacerbate matters... Furthermore, multitudes of corpses combined with failing healthcare (because, everything fails) will either create new, or bring back old, epidemics on a global scale.

It's hard to predict what will happen, beyond the the purely physical (sea level rising, extreme weather events becoming more and more frequent, rain patterns altered, and resulting crop failures occuring more often). A lot will depend on how each nation prepares for and responds to this. Some states and economies may crumble altogether, while others may addapt fast enough to survive.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 10:24 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
I kind of resent the US for that.

As you should. Stronger emotions would also be appropriate.

Yes but not necessarily useful.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 11:07 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
climate is changing) and it is futile to try to change it.

If America had accepted the idea of huiman-induced climate change sooner, we would have had a chance at reducing its magnitude. But successivef US government either denied it or didn't care much about it, and now it's too late. I kind of resent the US for that.

It's not actually too late to try. It's never too late to try. The problem is that people the world over just don't really want to make the personal sacrifices it would take to minimize their industrial footprints.

They don't want to give up driving and reforest their cities. They don't want to start removing pavement from the ground so organic life can grow back where it's been displaced. They don't want to commit to real, difficult, low-profit innovations that cost lots of effort and render little monetary return.

So, like you, they see futility and seek to blame other countries, governments, corporations, etc. instead of just biting the bullet and making difficult sacrifices like quitting driving and drastically reducing their energy use in all possible ways, including reducing/eliminating most travel, most climate control, and find innovative ways of using natural sunlight/wind/etc., such as hang-drying laundry, opening windows and using fans instead of air-conditioning, wearing warm clothes indoors in winter and putting up thicker insulation in certain rooms to minimize energy use for heating, etc.

If everyone was reforming their personal habits and households/workplaces to be completely regenerative of natural land-cover and thus climate, there would be a chance the climate would stabilize; but like smokers who can't quit, they just keep on abusing the planet and feeling confused about why they can't make changes that would save their lives.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 12:52 pm
@livinglava,
Google up "tragedy of the commons". Only a world-wide governance effort can deal with this.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 01:05 pm
The hysterical, apocalyptic claims being made now are not new, they have happened in many previous eras... and each time they turned out to be much less of a problem then predicted.

Tertullian circa 200 A.D. wrote:
"What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us.... In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race."


This doesn't mean that there aren't real serious problems. Global warming is certainly a real threat, as is nuclear proliferation.

But there is a possibility that dire predictions of the end of the human race are a little exaggerated.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 01:19 pm
@maxdancona,
Calling people hysterical for expressing an opinion can get you ignored. They weren't cutting down the rainforests until recent times. This is certain to axcellerate under the new regime. They didn't used to do fracking. They didn't fill up every nook and cranny with waste plastic. There has been an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico for 14 years and it doesn't even make the news. Fresh water is being taken over by bottlers while being denied residents in many places. This is just grazing the problems in many ways. Our food supply and our pharmaceuticals are designed to keep us ill so we can be used for cash crops, as their livestock.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 01:27 pm
@edgarblythe,
Some opinions are hysterical.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 01:29 pm
@edgarblythe,
For the record, I called the claims hysterical. I didn't call the people hysterical.

There is a difference. I can disagree with a hysterical claim, but then agree with a rational claim from the same person... I make a judgment claim by claim. If you judge a person to be "hysterical", then you reject any claim they make whether it is rational or not.

This is part of the point I was making in my civil discussion thread.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 01:34 pm
@edgarblythe,
I agree with some of your claims...

Yes, fracking is causing problems. Cutting down rainforest presents a real problem both globally and locally.

I disagree with others...

Your claim that the "food supply and our pharmaceuticals are designed to keep us ill" is completely ridiculous. The fact is that humans are living longer lives then ever, and that the percentage of humans facing starvation is historically low (this doesn't mean that there aren't humans facing starvation, but that compared to any other period of history there are fewer).

See... I can agree with the claims you make that I think are rational, and reject the claims you are making that I don't think make any sense. All that without making any criticism of who you are as a person.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 02:13 pm
@maxdancona,
They began living longer lives because they have been cleaner than in the past, not because of modern pharmaceuticals, which have so many side effects they kill people. But the overcharges and laws keep them wealthy enough to blow off the lawsuits.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 02:31 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
They began living longer lives because they have been cleaner than in the past, not because of modern pharmaceuticals


I think this point is ridiculous. I don't remember if you are against vaccinations (which have saved hundreds of millions of lives). I have personally been saved by antibiotics... 100 years ago my ruptured appendix would have killed me.

We have literally doubled the human life expectancy. We cure diseases that used to be fatal and we have eradicated diseases. I don't think it is at all rational to deny the incredible advances we have made in prolonging life and curing disease using modern pharmaceuticals. If you are over 60, it is likely that your life has been saved at least once by antibiotics and many of us have been saved by statins or other preventative medicine. I take a PPI which probably isn't making me live longer, but it sure is improving my quality of life.

It is good that humans are washing their hands. It is also good that humans have access to modern medicine.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 02:52 pm
@maxdancona,
They don't strike out every single time. There is a dividing line between dangerous pharmaceuticals and the type of doctoring to treat heart attacks, replace knees, etc. One is quacks, one is real doctors of medicine. Opioids, heart reflux medicines, all the **** they advertise on TV, even though the FDA approved it, is designed to keep you paying for more. Even antibiotics have been severely abused to the point where resistant diseases are evolving. There is also a line between beneficial vaccinations and ones designed to take your money. They made it illegal to sue vaccine makers just before unleashing all kinds of new vaccines.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 02:59 pm
@edgarblythe,
I agree with your point that the pharmaceutical industry puts profits ahead of patients and sometimes does more harm than good. The pushing of opioids leading to an epidemic of abuse is a good example of this and the criminal behavior of the pharmaceutical industry is pretty hard to deny.

I will state that on the whole, the modern medicines being created by the pharmaceutical industry has both extended lives and improved the quality of life for many people. I am a little curious about your issue with heart reflux medicine, I don't know very much about the science... but the details don't take away from the point that at times the pharmaceutical has created life saving drugs and at times has acted in such a way to the detriment of patients.

They can both be true.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 03:04 pm
@maxdancona,
Not to harp on the antibiotics, but that's a two edged sword. My mother in law had an infection severe enough in the nursing home that they quarantined her. She could not overcome the fact that the antibiotics were killing beneficial bacteria and harmful equally. She barely escaped.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 09:01 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Some opinions are hysterical.

And some opinions are held in denial of actual risks.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2018 09:11 pm
Individual Solution to General Problems.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2018 06:11 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 04:27:43