What's the REAL state of the environment?

[Squall]

With Earth Day approaching, I thought I'd ask everyone the question that's been torturing me for years: What's the REAL state of the environment?

For example: We hear all the time that we're running out of wilderness, that the whole world will soon be covered over in concrete. But, for example, according to the U.S. Geological Survey ( http://biology.usgs.gov/luhna/ ) only 3% of the U.S. is urban -- that is, more or less covered in concrete -- and 6% is defined as rural residential. It just seems like the whole world is covered in concrete to us because almost 90% of the U.S. population lives on that 3% of the land.

(Also, 15% of the U.S.'s land is used for crops, and 40% of the U.S.'s land is used for pasture for livestock.)

This is not to say that urban sprawl is wasted space and wasted energy, and that a smarter approach should be taken, but do we really have the problem that some claim we do?

Then there are the claims that we're running out of raw materials for our industrial civilization. Well, much of our raw materials are mined from the Earth's crust... our deepest mines and deepest drills can go a little more than a mile deep, but the Earth's crust is over 50 miles deep. Surely we've only scratched the surface of what's available to us? And, in the long term, NASA and the European Space Agency have ideas on the table to one day go to Mars, the Asteroid Belt and Jupiter's moons and mine them for raw materials as well...

Again, this is not to say that we should be wasteful. But do we really have the problem that some claim we do? There were people in the 1950's who said that metals like copper and aluminum would be prohibitively expensive and rare by the year 2000... thankfully, they were wrong! :)

Then comes the famous problem of 'global warming'. Is the Earth getting warmer? And if it is, is it our fault? And if it is, is this necessarily a bad thing? I've read that one volcanic eruption puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a whole year of humans driving vehicles on Earth. If that's the case, then, as a good friend of mine, who has a Bachelor of Science in Geology at U.T. Austin, says, "Mother Earth could and does shake humanity off like a bad cold." On the other hand, it was all the rage in the 1970's to say there was another Ice Age coming, and that only the hopes that the Earth's climate would warm up would stop it. So, what's the truth? Or does no one even know, because there's no where near enough data to make more than a slightly informed guess on the matter?

One issue I do think is of an urgent concern is water pollution and water availability. Only 0.01% of the water on Earth is fresh water, and most of that water is trapped in glaciers on the North & South Poles. Water pollution is a serious problem, from the Great Lakes between the U.S. and Canada to the water tables of central Europe.

Another issue I do think is of an urgent concern is Soil Depletion. It's not that we have a lack of land -- just the opposite, in fact, it seems (see above) -- but that we're using up, poisioning, or wasting good soil all the time. And soil is what makes it possible for plants to grow -- this includes everything from rain forests to regular forests (some of which we need for everything from houses to paper) to the land we grow our crops on. And we all like to eat, don't we? ;)

Finally, I'd like to get your opinions on the adage of some environmentalists that techonology is the root of our problems. Is this true? How many trips in cars (by either people trying to meet each other, or postal workers delivering mail) have phones and e-mail saved over the years? How many millions of trees weren't turned into books because the information was already available for free on the Internet? This issue perplexes me as well.

I just want to know the truth! Now don't get me wrong -- I'm a "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" fanatic, and I hate seeing fresh land get mowed over to build a building when there are empty and vacant lots of already developed land nearby. But when should concern turn into worry???

[Psycho Fox]

With Earth Day approaching, I thought I'd ask everyone the question that's been torturing me for years: What's the REAL state of the environment?

For example: We hear all the time that we're running out of wilderness, that the whole world will soon be covered over in concrete. But, for example, according to the U.S. Geological Survey ( http://biology.usgs.gov/luhna/ ) only 3% of the U.S. is urban -- that is, more or less covered in concrete -- and 6% is defined as rural residential. It just seems like the whole world is covered in concrete to us because almost 90% of the U.S. population lives on that 3% of the land.

(Also, 15% of the U.S.'s land is used for crops, and 40% of the U.S.'s land is used for pasture for livestock.)

This is not to say that urban sprawl is wasted space and wasted energy, and that a smarter approach should be taken, but do we really have the problem that some claim we do?
How much is "bush" meaning large tracks of land with thick vegitation? Meany replanting projects won't ever lead to bush since they are designed to grow new trees not to replace the eviorment that was distroyed. Also how many roads and rails cut across land that distrupt the movement of wild life?



Then comes the famous problem of 'global warming'. Is the Earth getting warmer? And if it is, is it our fault? And if it is, is this necessarily a bad thing? I've read that one volcanic eruption puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a whole year of humans driving vehicles on Earth.But we add to that.



If that's the case, then, as a good friend of mine, who has a Bachelor of Science in Geology at U.T. Austin, says, "Mother Earth could and does shake humanity off like a bad cold." On the other hand, it was all the rage in the 1970's to say there was another Ice Age coming, and that only the hopes that the Earth's climate would warm up would stop it. So, what's the truth? Or does no one even know, because there's no where near enough data to make more than a slightly informed guess on the matter?
See Earth will survive it us Humans that is question. Earth is a gaint rock there is other specials that are more adaptive to charging eniorment then us.

As for global warming the FACT is waters are rising in Alaska and has been proven to be linked to global warming. Alaska has linked rising waters with rasing tempetures meaning as the earth gets hotter the coasts lines will move inland. Also it wouldn't take much to change the currents in the oceans that could change weather patterens.

Finally, I'd like to get your opinions on the adage of some environmentalists that techonology is the root of our problems. Is this true? How many trips in cars (by either people trying to meet each other, or postal workers delivering mail) have phones and e-mail saved over the years? How many millions of trees weren't turned into books because the information was already available for free on the Internet? This issue perplexes me as well.
The problem with cars is the current car has the same fule efficeny as the model T

On the other hand before the goverment went into subsidings roads streetcars moved people with little effect on the enivorment (besides that of the factories that made them and *some* of the power plants that powered them) today streetcars are for more enviromentally freindly then those of old. New streetcars can move far more people fast with far less power then the streetcars of the turn of the century.

The problem is not with technology yet how it is implemented and what is its focus.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

IMO, the biggest problem with the alarmist environmental advocates is that their hyperbole often turns off the mainstream, with the result that anything valuable in what they DO say gets lost along with the noise. This is the same problem that plagues lots of other advocates.

I don't really know the answer to your question, but I tend to look at the question in game theory terms. When people are playing roulette, the greatest reward comes from putting your money on a single number. Very few people actually do this, however, because using it exclusively as a strategy leads to an empty bankroll very quickly. Most people who play roulette regularly will bet on groups of numbers or on the colors, and will bet on a few different spots on the board -- the reward is much lower, but so is the risk. The environmental alarmists may be wrong, and they have been wrong in the past.

But what happens if they aren't this time?

I'm not betting on the extremist position that the coastal areas of the world are going to flood in the next 10 years because of global warming. I'm also not betting on the extremist position that the collective mass of humanity has no effect on the planet, and we can do what we want with impunity. I also think the world isn't a game of roulette, and anything we do will come back to haunt us, because it always does.

-- Ed/Ace

[Squall]

No one else worries about the environment? :(

I care a lot about the environment -- but I also care about individual rights, such as property rights. What I want to know is:

(1) Is there really an environmental crisis on our hands? In the U.S. or Earth as a whole? Or not???

and

(2) If there is an environmental crisis, then how can we solve it without destroying individual and property rights? I don't want to live in a world where the government gets to approve everything you buy, sell, and do, either in the name of environmentalism, or anything else for that matter...

:(

[Damien]

Is there really an environmental crisis on our hands?Yes. Yes there is. But don't worry. We'll all be living in moon colonies by 1965. :p
I understand your concern, and while mankind's progress has no doubt harmed Mother Nature, She keeps coming back strong. We keep building and progressing, we keep driving around in gas-powered cars, we keep chopping down trees and using our hairsprays and aerosols, but there are always trees and always fishies swimming in the sea.
The same enviormental concerns have been around for years and years. And years. And, as trite as it may sound, the solutions, the small steps to helping the enviorment also remain the same. Recycle. Ride a bike. Stay in school.
I'm sure if there was a real big crisis at hand, we would've noticed the affects by now, which would in turn effect us. As far as mention of the coasts being buried in the sea, yes, that and other extreme changes will probably take place, but not because of what mankind has done, but because the Earth is a few thousand years overdue for it.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Unfortunately, I think you're seeking a definitive answer to a question that has no definitive answer. Considering that meteorologists still mis-forecast the weather, I'm not sure that any one scientist or group of scientists can give you a definitive answer whether we're "in a crisis" or not. Even if they did, almost everybody out there has an agenda and a vested interest in the answer that they're giving.

What I can say is that nearly every environmental science report I've seen that hasn't been paid for by the energy industry says that global warming is happening, it's happening because of people, and it can and will be a catastrophically destructive problem within our lifetimes unless something is done about it. The Pentagon has a contingency plan for global warming (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next040227.htm) -- sure, it's a "what if" scenario, but the writers based everything they had on plausible, observable phenomena (it's here (http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climatechange.pdf) if you want to read the real report). Apparently, SOMEBODY in government is concerned about it.

IMO, the solution to the crisis (or even the issue, if you don't want to seem excessively alarmist) is to start with your own behavior. In addition to reduce, reuse, and recycle, energy usage is where most of the problems seem to arise, and it's really not that hard to cut your energy usage without many sacrifices. I like the Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0918249465/qid=1082640602/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1481014-5128128?v=glance&s=books), because it's written in English and gives lots of different, practical advice on cutting your energy profile in large and small ways. The fact that most of their advice appeals to my inner cheapskate is a bouns -- I'm willing to pay more up front for things from light bulbs to lawn mowers to furnaces if I'm going to get it back in the long run. If it turns out they're wrong, well, at least I saved some money out of it :).

Finally, I think you're being a bit harsher on government regulation than you need to be. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the acid rain scare of the 70's, but it went away almost entirely directly because of government regulation on emissions. At the time, all the energy industries moaned and cried about how it was going to bankrupt them and how disruptive it would be -- and it turned out that they were wrong.

The gas crisis of the 70's went away almost entirely because of federally mandated gas mileage standards, which also drew claims from the (American) auto companies that it would bankrupt them and that it would fill our roads with cars that were unsafe -- and they were wrong again.

Finally, it's not directly related, but I would have been pretty upset if the government told me I couldn't bring my Swiss Army knife on an airplane outside of checked baggage before 9/11. I'm not sure I would have believed them if they said they were doing it to prevent terrorism. I'd prefer not to have something comparable happen environmentally before submitting to government regulation.

-- Ed/Ace

[Psycho Fox]

I understand your concern, and while mankind's progress has no doubt harmed Mother Nature, She keeps coming back strong. We keep building and progressing, we keep driving around in gas-powered cars, we keep chopping down trees and using our hairsprays and aerosols, but there are always trees and always fishies swimming in the sea.
Then how do you explain fish populations and average fish size have fallen drasticly?


The same enviormental concerns have been around for years and years. And years. And, as trite as it may sound, the solutions, the small steps to helping the enviorment also remain the same. Recycle. Ride a bike. Stay in school.
Those are mainstream solutions.


I'm sure if there was a real big crisis at hand, we would've noticed the affects by now, which would in turn effect us. As far as mention of the coasts being buried in the sea, yes, that and other extreme changes will probably take place, but not because of what mankind has done, but because the Earth is a few thousand years overdue for it.Those are just lies to protect the industrilized nations from having to pay island nations that are losing lands due to industries in said countries.

Also many health problem are starting to be linked to pollution.

[Squall]

What I can say is that nearly every environmental science report I've seen that hasn't been paid for by the energy industry says that global warming is happening, it's happening because of people, and it can and will be a catastrophically destructive problem within our lifetimes unless something is done about it. The Pentagon has a contingency plan for global warming (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next040227.htm) -- sure, it's a "what if" scenario, but the writers based everything they had on plausible, observable phenomena (it's here (http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climatechange.pdf) if you want to read the real report). Apparently, SOMEBODY in government is concerned about it.
Well, I don't think that Pentagon report is a reason for alarm... after all, the U.S. military has contingency plans for everything. They have contingency plans for things such as:

--invasion strategies for every country in the world -- yes, even Canada and Mexico
--a contingency plan in case aliens invade Earth!
--a contingency plan in case of nuclear holocaust
--a contingency plan in case of a cataclysmic asteroid strike
--contingency plans in case of direct military invasion by another country, or for terrorism from nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons

Do some of them seem silly? Perhaps. But you know the old saying -- it never hurts to be prepared! At worst, these plans will sit in top secret file cabinets, collecting dust...

[Psycho Fox]

Well, I don't think that Pentagon report is a reason for alarm... after all, the U.S. military has contingency plans for everything. They have contingency plans for things such as:
It is based on hard science it deal with if there is a higher amount of fresh water that melts from glaciers and Arctic ice. This fresh water is less dense, so it doesn't sink, which slows down the Gulf Stream. If it were to slow significantly or stop (which appears to have happened in the past), Europe could very quickly plummet into a little ice age. Much of North America would also become cooler, drier and windier. As the Pentagon points out, this could wreak havoc on agricultural production and the economy, leading to major social upheavals.

Meaning global warming could lead not just the US but the world into a Global Depresion. Add to the fact that the Earth has a huge lag even stoping ALL pollution it would take over 5 years before the Earth could *start* reversing that is if the Earth's enviorment is not too far gone.

So it the Pentagon's senario would go like this. Global warming triggers deperssion, all production that creates pollution is stoped. 5 years later (if we are lucky) we start to see the enviorment change again (hopefully for the better). Meaing the depression would last at least 5 years but probabaly 10 years if capitalism lasts that long.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Well, I don't think that Pentagon report is a reason for alarm... after all, the U.S. military has contingency plans for everything

Right -- didn't mean to suggest that the report, by itself, was cause for alarm. It's just another data point to show that someone in there considers the problem worth the effort of a contingency plan. As complete as their plans may be, I'm pretty sure that they don't have any for, say, complete cessation of gravity on Earth, a dinosaur invasion, the complete and total breakdown of every non-natural material on Earth, or the sudden and catastrophic de-evolution of mammalian DNA that turns all of us into hordes of single-celled organisms.

Actually, that last one would solve a whole lot of problems right quick...

In any event, there are nay-sayers who categorically deny that global warming is happening at all, and claim it will do no harm if it does happen. The existence of the contingency plan suggests to me that some people at the Pentagon aren't convinced that either of those statements is true.

-- Ed/Ace

[Squall]

It is based on hard science...
Is it?

"Following this blatant act of politicizing science via the Kyoto Protocol, more than 140 climate scientists (including several TV meteorologists) rebelled and signed the Leipzig Declaration, which states that "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide ... actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever -- in direct contradiction to computer models."

As Dr. Fred Singer point out, the oft-cited 0.5 degree (C) warming since 1850 mostly occurred prior to 1940, long before carbon dioxide emissions increased significantly, and most likely is the result of a natural recovery from a mini ice-age (1450-1850). Furthermore, contrary to widespread belief, meteorological data indicate that exceptionally violent and destructive hurricanes have become less frequent in the past 50 years. But, truth is subjective according to modern philosophy. What's true for environmentalists -- floods of "biblical proportions," apocalyptic storms, massive droughts, famine and pestilence -- is no less true than anyone else's claims. Subjectivism -- the notion that "it's true because I (or the majority) believe it or feel it" -- is the brand of mysticism currently ruling modern culture, including politics..."

http://www.sepp.org/

[MJC]

I'm sure if there was a real big crisis at hand, we would've noticed the affects by now, which would in turn effect us.

By the time we notice, it'd probably be too late to do anything about it. I think it's better to be proactive.

[Psycho Fox]

Is it?

"Following this blatant act of politicizing science via the Kyoto Protocol, more than 140 climate scientists (including several TV meteorologists) rebelled and signed the Leipzig Declaration, which states that "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide ... actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever -- in direct contradiction to computer models."

There is a consensus there is not ONE study not funded by industries that can disprove global warming. So you just have people that has invested intrest to spread disinformation about how global warming is not true.

The problem is we are talking about small increse over a long period of time. Not this year is hotter then last year or this decade is hotter then last since if global warming got to the point where TV meteoriogist had the data to prove global warming it would be FAR to late.

[Squall]

There is a consensus there is not ONE study not funded by industries that can disprove global warming. So you just have people that has invested intrest to spread disinformation about how global warming is not true.
What does a climate scientist gain by saying that there is no proof at all that global warming is occuring? What does he or she lose by not saying that?

And, if you want to play the funding game, it seems that all the "YES" studies are funded by environmental groups like Greenpeace and The Sierra Club, while all the "NO" studies are funded by the energy industries. So who's telling the truth? Perhaps neither since both sides have agendas. Is the truth then somewhere in the middle?

[Fone Bone]

Let's say the environment is in good shape. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution? Especially considering the stakes?

[Squall]

Let's say the environment is in good shape. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution? Especially considering the stakes?
Perhaps. But there's a difference between 'erring on the side of caution' and the 'Chicken Little screaming "The sky is falling!" syndrome'... Where do we draw that line when protecting the envrionment?

[Fone Bone]

Perhaps. But there's a difference between 'erring on the side of caution' and the 'Chicken Little screaming "The sky is falling!" syndrome'... Where do we draw that line when protecting the envrionment?
We do what we're able to and try for what we're not.

[Psycho Fox]

And, if you want to play the funding game, it seems that all the "YES" studies are funded by environmental groups like Greenpeace and The Sierra Club, while all the "NO" studies are funded by the energy industries. So who's telling the truth? Perhaps neither since both sides have agendas. Is the truth then somewhere in the middle?The Pentegon report was funded by tax payers and it says global warming is possible. A report funded by UK pax payers also found theis Flooding cost 'may rise 20-fold' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3648391.stm)

The side that does not belive in global warming is starting to look like junk science, they claim there is no proof yet don't offer any proof to discredit the proof that proves global warming.

[Squall]

The Pentegon report was funded by tax payers and it says global warming is possible. A report funded by UK pax payers also found theis Flooding cost 'may rise 20-fold' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3648391.stm)

The side that does not belive in global warming is starting to look like junk science, they claim there is no proof yet don't offer any proof to discredit the proof that proves global warming.
Well, the Pentagon said "It's possible!" So is an alien invasion. So is a cataclysmic asteroid collision. But that doesn't mean that it's actually happening.

Just because a report is "funded by the taxpayers" doesn't make it arbitrary. The politicians who put the money into the report get to pull the strings there...

Also, how do you 'prove' there is no global warming if it's not occuring? All you can do is show that there is no global temperature changes going on. Your 'proof' is really the lack of evidence that what the other side says is actually happening. :) Think of it this way: in court, the prosecutor tries to prove that a person did commit a crime... meanwhile, the defendant tries to show that there is a lack of evidence of it. You can't 'prove' that someone didn't do something -- because proof requires evidence. And how can you have evidence of something that didn't happen?

So, in this case, the pro-global warming people are the prosecutors, and the anti-global warming people are the defendants...

...and there are studies pointing in both directions. So, before I start living in a cave and eating berries again, I want proof. I want the truth!
:cool:

Speaking of junk science... http://www.junkscience.com/

[Romanesque]

Also, how do you 'prove' there is no global warming if it's not occuring? All you can do is show that there is no global temperature changes going on. Your 'proof' is really the lack of evidence that what the other side says is actually happening.

Umm... wha? If you can prove the global temperature has not increased, how is that a lack of evidence? Your logic is flawed.

Of course, I've seen far more proof of global warming than vice versa. The question is whether or not we're a statistically significant cause of it. Alas, I'm not up to date on the matter.

--Romey

[Psycho Fox]

Also, how do you 'prove' there is no global warming if it's not occuring? All you can do is show that there is no global temperature changes going on. Your 'proof' is really the lack of evidence that what the other side says is actually happening. :) Think of it this way: in court, the prosecutor tries to prove that a person did commit a crime... meanwhile, the defendant tries to show that there is a lack of evidence of it. You can't 'prove' that someone didn't do something -- because proof requires evidence. And how can you have evidence of something that didn't happen?

The fact is the there is rising water levels and a over all rise in average Earth tempeture. The debate is not that if that is happing through you just have to fly to Alaska,Newfoundland,ect and ask the natives where the water line use to be.

Were we have this little tiff is if rising water levels is linked to pollution. Scientist have not given ANY proof that pollution has no effect on Earth's temepture infact evideince is almost overwhelming pointing that pollution plays a large part in Earth's tempeture.

Basicly industries have yet to prove what their spewing into the air SAFE.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

...and there are studies pointing in both directions. So, before I start living in a cave and eating berries again, I want proof. I want the truth!
:cool:
Why does one have to live in a cave and eat berries to act positively towards the environment? Changing your light bulbs from incandescents to compact flourescents can cut your energy usage by 60% or more with no sacrifice other than a marginally higher up-front cost (which is easily made up by the energy savings and the fact that CFLs don't need to be replaced for 7 years on average).

Driving a smaller car or a hybrid means sacrificing some cargo capacity, but if 90% of your driving is commuting to and from work with nothing in the car but yourself, what are you REALLY losing?

Separating your garbage is easy enough. Making choices in the supermarket to buy things in bulk instead of in overpackaged single-servings can save you cash and reduce the amount of garbage you produce. Re-using your plastic bags means you don't end up drowning in the stupid things, all for the cost of remembering to throw them in the trunk of your car.

One person cutting his or her environmental footprint by 1% is nearly meaningless. A million of them doing it matters. All of America doing it means we could drastically improve air pollution and oil dependency, all while saving money.

They're all little things that add up over time. I figure if I'm wrong, well, at the very least, I came out ahead in the deal :).

-- Ed/Ace

[Fone Bone]

Howdy,


Why does one have to live in a cave and eat berries to act positively towards the environment? Changing your light bulbs from incandescents to compact flourescents can cut your energy usage by 60% or more with no sacrifice other than a marginally higher up-front cost (which is easily made up by the energy savings and the fact that CFLs don't need to be replaced for 7 years on average).

Driving a smaller car or a hybrid means sacrificing some cargo capacity, but if 90% of your driving is commuting to and from work with nothing in the car but yourself, what are you REALLY losing?

Separating your garbage is easy enough. Making choices in the supermarket to buy things in bulk instead of in overpackaged single-servings can save you cash and reduce the amount of garbage you produce. Re-using your plastic bags means you don't end up drowning in the stupid things, all for the cost of remembering to throw them in the trunk of your car.

One person cutting his or her environmental footprint by 1% is nearly meaningless. A million of them doing it matters. All of America doing it means we could drastically improve air pollution and oil dependency, all while saving money.

They're all little things that add up over time. I figure if I'm wrong, well, at the very least, I came out ahead in the deal :).

-- Ed/Ace
That was wonderful. Since I have OCD, I use a lot of water. I'd like to think by recycling and reusing plastic bags I'm giving back to Mother Nature what I've gotten from her.

[Squall]

Oh, don't misunderstand me, Ace, I do everything you mentioned above; I was just trying to make a point with an exaggeration. :cool: I love and care about the environment; but I don't want to become a slave to the environment, either.

[Pilmedium]

(Also, 15% of the U.S.'s land is used for crops, and 40% of the U.S.'s land is used for pasture for livestock.)
While that land may not be covered with concrete, most of it is not in a natural state. It is therefore comparable to suburban areas.


And, in the long term, NASA and the European Space Agency have ideas on the table to one day go to Mars, the Asteroid Belt and Jupiter's moons and mine them for raw materials as well...
First off, that would remain excessively expensive for too long to even think about. Also, it is bad enough that the physical makeup of Earth is being destroyed, so the possibility of that arouses fear of abuse by humans.


Then comes the famous problem of 'global warming'. Is the Earth getting warmer? And if it is, is it our fault? And if it is, is this necessarily a bad thing? I've read that one volcanic eruption puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a whole year of humans driving vehicles on Earth. If that's the case, then, as a good friend of mine, who has a Bachelor of Science in Geology at U.T. Austin, says, "Mother Earth could and does shake humanity off like a bad cold." On the other hand, it was all the rage in the 1970's to say there was another Ice Age coming, and that only the hopes that the Earth's climate would warm up would stop it. So, what's the truth? Or does no one even know, because there's no where near enough data to make more than a slightly informed guess on the matter?
Global warming is at least partially the fault of humans, simply because of the gases that human activities release into the air. Worldwide climate changes occur gradually enough that the many generations of humans that live and die in a "transition period" could adapt, should another ice age ever occur. Intensified global warming could unnaturally kill other organisms, even though many people would hardly care.


Finally, I'd like to get your opinions on the adage of some environmentalists that techonology is the root of our problems. Is this true? How many trips in cars (by either people trying to meet each other, or postal workers delivering mail) have phones and e-mail saved over the years? How many millions of trees weren't turned into books because the information was already available for free on the Internet? This issue perplexes me as well.
Motorized vehicles involve technology. Factories involve technology. Chemicals that are sprayed on land involve technology. Even the building of a house or office building was once thought to involve technology. Even if the newest technology is not harmful, technology did start the human impact on the environment.

[Squall]

First off, that would remain excessively expensive for too long to even think about. Also, it is bad enough that the physical makeup of Earth is being destroyed, so the possibility of that arouses fear of abuse by humans...
Well I did say long term... :) Who would care if we disrupt the physical makeup of an asteroid? Or a dead, rocky planet like Mars, or one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn? Nothing lives there, there is no biosphere to protect, so I say, when it comes to asteroids, moons, and planets with no life: Go for it!

[Fone Bone]

Well I did say long term... :) Who would care if we disrupt the physical makeup of an asteroid? Or a dead, rocky planet like Mars, or one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn? Nothing lives there, there is no biosphere to protect, so I say, when it comes to asteroids, moons, and planets with no life: Go for it!
We need to stop throwing money we don't have into the space program and start working on putting money into schools and universal health care. We should work to keep our own planet livable rather than counting on impossible to reach fuel sources.

[Romanesque]

Motorized vehicles involve technology. Factories involve technology. Chemicals that are sprayed on land involve technology. Even the building of a house or office building was once thought to involve technology. Even if the newest technology is not harmful, technology did start the human impact on the environment.

Aaaand the same technology is working toward undoing the damage of past technology. Does past technology somehow make all technology bad? I'm not seeing the point, here.

We need to stop throwing money we don't have into the space program and start working on putting money into schools and universal health care. We should work to keep our own planet livable rather than counting on impossible to reach fuel sources.

Funds put towards space are not necessarily funds being taken away from schools and health care, however.

Romey
--Of course, this is the same forum that couldn't think of any benefits the space program has brought us in the past. Yeah, I'm in a bad mood today. :p

[Squall]

Funds put towards space are not necessarily funds being taken away from schools and health care, however... :p
I agree completely! :p We have to explore the Universe if we're going to gain new technologies (and as stated above, eventual access to new resources) and grow as a species. What, should we stay stuck here on Earth forever? If you say that we need to solve all the problems of humanity before we explore the stars, then good luck -- those problems will be there forever. Besides, how do you know that we won't find something out there in space that will solve all of our problems down here?

:confused:

Here's what I'd like to see as long-term goals for NASA and the European, Russian, Chinese and Japanese space agencies (and anyone else who joins the space race in the future):

-- a permanant, much larger space station in orbit of Earth (like a spacedock on 'Star Trek')

-- one, then eventually, multiple permanant colonies on Luna (the formal name for the Earth's moon :p )

-- a permanant, large space station in orbit of Mars (like a regular starbase on 'Star Trek')

--one, then eventually, multiple permanant colonies on Mars and Phobos and Demios (its moons)

...Repeat this process with Jupiter's major moons and Saturn's major moons, etc.

One step at a time, we'll reach for the stars! :cool:

[Hey_yu]

Here's what I'd like to see as long-term goals for NASA and the European, Russian, Chinese and Japanese space agencies (and anyone else who joins the space race in the future):

-- a permanant, much larger space station in orbit of Earth (like a spacedock on 'Star Trek')

-- one, then eventually, multiple permanant colonies on Luna (the formal name for the Earth's moon :p )

-- a permanant, large space station in orbit of Mars (like a regular starbase on 'Star Trek')

--one, then eventually, multiple permanant colonies on Mars and Phobos and Demios (its moons)

...Repeat this process with Jupiter's major moons and Saturn's major moons, etc.

One step at a time, we'll reach for the stars! :cool:
I'd also like to add one more thing:

-- a nice, big shiny mecha for me to ride in and cause havoc

[Squall]

I'd also like to add one more thing:

-- a nice, big shiny mecha for me to ride in and cause havoc
Oh, that will be one of the things developed along the way. :D And, in case someone is wondering, I'm thinking very, very, very long term here... no way we'll have the whole Sol system populated anytime in the near future... by 2400, perhaps? ;)

Oh, and here's a very practical purpose for having space agencies... eventually we can develop the technology to stop meteors and comets from hitting the Earth... because eventually, one will, and right now, we have nothing to stop one, especially a civilization-ending one, from hitting Earth (forget Hollywood hype here -- firing all our nuclear weapons at a civilization-ending asteroid would be like shooting a moving 18-wheeler with a BB gun. It might put a few dents in the door... but it's still going to run you over).

[zmanjz]

people complain about global warming....here are some other things to consider


1. The moon is on a long-term escape trajectory. Over the next several thousand (or million) years, it is likely that the earth will lose the moon, and it's rotation will destabilize as a result.

2. The Earth's Internal temperature has been decreasing, and will continue to decrease over thousands (or millions) years. Once the Earth's core has solidified there will no longer be a magnetic field protecting the earth, and it's surface will be unprotected to the vast amounts of solar/cosmic Radiation that are currently shunted to the Poles.


I don't really know if Global warning is a result of humans or not. A Professor of mine once refrenced the issue of the "Urban thermal Island" basicly, Cities retain heat close to the ground rather than releasing it into the air. When most Weather stations were built at airports the airports were outside of the "Urban Heat Island" , and since then in many regions, Urban construction now surrounds those Airports, and the weather stations.

What does this mean? It's a previously unconsidered variable in the equation. Take it how you will.

But also keep in mind that Water Vapor (3% of the composition of the Atmosphere) is the single most powerful greenhouse gas there is. THe more water vapor there is in the atmosphere, the greater the Greenhouse effect.

What's that Mean? I don't know. but when they start making those Hydrogen powered cars that pump out "Harmless" water vapor, it'll be interesting to see what happens.



If there's anything the Geo-Sciences have taught me it's that nothing lasts forever, so enjoy life while you can.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Who would care if we disrupt the physical makeup of an asteroid? Or a dead, rocky planet like Mars, or one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn? Nothing lives there, there is no biosphere to protect, so I say, when it comes to asteroids, moons, and planets with no life: Go for it!

How do we know we won't do something horrible by messing with asteroid or planetary mining?

Worst case scenario: we mine Mars hollow enough that its planetary mass changes, at which point its orbit decays and it eventually slams into the Earth.

Parallel point -- I'm pretty sure the first European explorers who hit South America and the Pacific Islands didn't intend to exterminate the native populations with smallpox and other diseases. They just wanted to make money and I'm not sure they could have envisioned a people who DIDN'T live with smallpox. We don't think there's anything we can disrupt on Mars or that there's anything there that can disrupt stuff here, but it seems that the universe has a really strange sense of humor where the law of unintended consequences is concerned.

Not against outer-space mining conceptually, but if we can delay or avoid its necessity through resource reduction and recycling, one seems like a better long-term bet to me.

-- Ed/Ace

[Romanesque]

Worst case scenario: we mine Mars hollow enough that its planetary mass changes, at which point its orbit decays and it eventually slams into the Earth.

Worst case? Impossible, actually...

Parallel point...

Not really parallel, because it takes place on earth, and involves a human disease. Unless we find humans already living on Mars, that won't be of much concern...

Not against outer-space mining conceptually, but if we can delay or avoid its necessity through resource reduction and recycling, one seems like a better long-term bet to me.

Sounds like technological paranoia to me.

Anyway, to tie this all back in with global warming... Mars isn't a very warm place. Thankfully, it's not the coldest of places out there, either, and could potentially be warmed. A better understanding of global warming on earth will be essential if we ever plan on a long-term inhabitation of Mars.

--Romey

[Fone Bone]

What makes me think the money to go into the space program will be taken from social programs and health care? Cause George Bush is the one undertaking it. He spends money like it's water for space and military. Even Republicans think he's a spendtrift. He spends almost nothing on social issues unless you count the "Healthy Families Initiative". Yep, helping poor black folks realizing that having babies out of wedlock creates social problems is much better than spending money on schools and health care to actually help the poor in this country. I am really, really sorry I turned this into a political issue, but nowadays it is.

Calvin: I think the surest sign there IS intelligent life in the universe is that it hasn't tried to contact US.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Not really parallel, because it takes place on earth, and involves a human disease. Unless we find humans already living on Mars, that won't be of much concern...

You're taking the literal portion of my point, but not the moral of the story. It's easy to say "Nothing bad happens if we do X" until you start slamming head-on into unintended consequences. I'm quite certain that European explorers fully believed, "Nothing bad happens if we go out and explore the world and maybe find places and people to trade stuff with," without ever even considering that smallpox wasn't a world-wide disease yet.

Just saying tread carefully and never say never. Nothing happens anywhere without consequences.

-- Ed/Ace

[Psycho Fox]

I agree completely! :p We have to explore the Universe if we're going to gain new technologies (and as stated above, eventual access to new resources) and grow as a species. What, should we stay stuck here on Earth forever? If you say that we need to solve all the problems of humanity before we explore the stars, then good luck -- those problems will be there forever. Besides, how do you know that we won't find something out there in space that will solve all of our problems down here?

That makes as much sence as if the breaks in your car drags to try to put more power to the wheels instead of tring to unstick the breaks.

All going into space will do with the current state of humanity is increase waste and inefficeny. Think about the huge amount resources that would be needed to simply move resources around with current rocket engines. Also you forgetting with the current social system imporant stuff like air will either be a commodity meaning the poor will not have equal access to air for breathing as the rich out in space or even the poor on Earth. Or air would be handled by the goverment meaning in 50 years odds are you'll have times when the air stoped flowing on colonies as neglicted equipment fails.

We don't have the efficency or the social format to go into space. I don't think we even have the industrial might even if it was all foced on space to do it. Think about what the Earth does for us for FREE and think that all what Earth does for free we have to do, to put colonies on other planets or on Earth if the eniviorment colaps here.

For example to even grow anything we need dead orgnianisms in the soil. The enviorment does this for us automaticlly on Earth.

[Romanesque]

You're taking the literal portion of my point, but not the moral of the story.

And the moral was... that you're being paranoid?

Technological advancement of this kind needs to be tempered with careful thought, ethical analysis, and all kinds of preparation. This does not mean that we do nothing, just because we're a bunch of cave-dwelling technophobes who are too paranoid about the big scary unknown consequences to venture out of the darkness and interact with our world.

All going into space will do with the current state of humanity is increase waste and inefficeny. Think about the huge amount resources that would be needed to simply move resources around with current rocket engines.

So you claim that our journies into space, which, by their very nature, demand increased efficiency across the board, will result in increased waste and inefficiency? If space mining is to ever "take off", it will have to be commercially viable. In space, lack of efficiency will result in no profit. No profit, no space mining.

For example to even grow anything we need dead orgnianisms in the soil. The enviorment does this for us automaticlly on Earth.

Thank's for the botany lesson. ;-)

--Romey

[wrenchien]

snowing in colorado.

cooler this year than it's been in years.

global warming?

HA.

[Romanesque]

snowing in colorado.

cooler this year than it's been in years.

global warming?

HA.

Actually... weather extremes in general are supposed to be a result of global warming. Makes sense, if you think about it.

--Romey

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

And the moral was... that you're being paranoid?

Re-reading my posts, I am coming off as more paranoid than I intend to, and for that I apologize.

Thanks to NASA, we've discovered that there could be chlorophyll on Mars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1913228.stm) and there was water on the surface of Mars (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20040323a.html) at some point (maybe even underground (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20040401a.html)).

Life has shown itself to be a lot more tenacious than we thought. What if we dig 50 feet below the Martian surface and find single-celled animal life?

Does this mean I don't want to go to Mars and find out? Heck, no! I'm as desperate to meet Marvin or a sorn as anybody. I say tread carefully and never say never. This is a sentiment you seem to agree with, so it seems to me that we're all good, here.

Relating closer to the original point, I also say don't look for an answer from more drilling when smart reduce/reuse/recycle can yield the same results.

-- Ed/Ace

[Romanesque]

Re-reading my posts, I am coming off as more paranoid than I intend to, and for that I apologize . . . I say tread carefully and never say never. This is a sentiment you seem to agree with, so it seems to me that we're all good, here.

Is alright. The Cafe has a thing for bringing out the extremists in people...

Relating closer to the original point, I also say don't look for an answer from more drilling when smart reduce/reuse/recycle can yield the same results.

And my own point, we shouldn't stop seeking advancement, even advancement into space, just because we haven't perfected things here on earth. Rather, I believe the effort will ultimately help us learn to deal with our current problems. If we wait until we've solved everything here, we'll never be going anywhere, and we'll certainly never learn things that could have benefited us.

--Romey

[Psycho Fox]

So you claim that our journies into space, which, by their very nature, demand increased efficiency across the board, will result in increased waste and inefficiency? If space mining is to ever "take off", it will have to be commercially viable. In space, lack of efficiency will result in no profit. No profit, no space mining.
See the problem is currently Earth subsidizes most of our economy. Without the Earth subsidizing us there is no social or economic model that could possibly work as we would all be very dead. We can't take over all of the Earths functions not becouse of lack technology but simply the Earth's production output is many times what all of mankind's is or could ever be. Even in the Earth's current damaged state it still more productive then all the nations put together.

Yet we currently take for granted what the Earth produces and forget all the money in the world is useless if the Earth ever slacks off its duties of subsidizing us. Guess where the resources will come from for any space mission? Earth and even if Mars starts subsidizing our need for raw material it also can't compare to what Earth produces for us to live.

So since there is no human race without Earth I think it is a pretty high priorty.

[Romanesque]

Not to disrespect the need for preserving the planet (especially for our own sake), but...

See the problem is currently Earth subsidizes most of our economy. Without the Earth subsidizing us there is no social or economic model that could possibly work as we would all be very dead. We can't take over all of the Earths functions not becouse of lack technology but simply the Earth's production output is many times what all of mankind's is or could ever be. Even in the Earth's current damaged state it still more productive then all the nations put together.

Left to its own devices, the earth alone would have us all dead. We're not well adapted to most of the environments we live in, and the few natural environments we're suited to are not capable of supporting many of us all that well.

Everything modern civilization thrives on has been severely altered from its natural state since the beginning. We've been breeding plants and animals, aware of it or not, to suit our own needs for millennia. The results are typically dependent upon us, and would most often die if placed in a truely natural environment. Those that manage to survive outside our reach are the ones that have shed all features useful to us. We were changing entire landscapes and ecosystems to suit us long before recorded history, and we'll continue to do so for a long time to come.

We've done so here, and I hope we'll be around to so on other planets... the universe isn't a friendly place.

Even if Mars starts subsidizing our need for raw material it also can't compare to what Earth produces for us to live.

If we need to, we'll make it. If we're still here. Such is our lot in this world.

--Romey

[Psycho Fox]

Not to disrespect the need for preserving the planet (especially for our own sake), but...



Left to its own devices, the earth alone would have us all dead. We're not well adapted to most of the environments we live in, and the few natural environments we're suited to are not capable of supporting many of us all that well.

Everything modern civilization thrives on has been severely altered from its natural state since the beginning. We've been breeding plants and animals, aware of it or not, to suit our own needs for millennia. The results are typically dependent upon us, and would most often die if placed in a truely natural environment. Those that manage to survive outside our reach are the ones that have shed all features useful to us. We were changing entire landscapes and ecosystems to suit us long before recorded history, and we'll continue to do so for a long time to come.
You are right but that still doesn't change the fact that Earth is still subsididing Humans not the other way around. Even if we breed plans and animals the Earth recycles dead organiac material at such rate that Humans can't ever hope to even recylce organic material at a quarter of what the Earth does.

Like it or not when your dead the Earth will recycle our body so new life can exist on Earth.

Like it or not, every thing we grow the Earth is really producing. Want to try growing something is Space? it will take for more effort for less output then getting Earth to do it.

Think of the Earth as a gaint factory automaticly spitting everything we need. Food,air,water,materials,protection for space. See the reason mankind has changed entire landscape and ecosystems is we have a inferiority complex we don't want to admit we are a animal we are just as dependant on Earth as every other animal on this planet. That is not to say we shouldn't change the landscape but just like you think before knocking out walls in your home, thought has to go into it before altering landscape.


So far we are like termites eating away at a ships hull not wanting to think that one day we might break through and causing the very thing we abuse for "wealth" is needed for our vary existance.

[Romanesque]

You are right but that still doesn't change the fact that Earth is still subsididing Humans not the other way around. Even if we breed plans and animals the Earth recycles dead organiac material at such rate that Humans can't ever hope to even recylce organic material at a quarter of what the Earth does . . . Like it or not, every thing we grow the Earth is really producing. Want to try growing something is Space? it will take for more effort for less output then getting Earth to do it.

You'll have to forgive me if I say that such reasoning sounds a little too much like a deification of the earth.

The "earth" doesn't recycle dead organic matter. Worms, insects, bacteria, and a host of other critters do. Yes, these are natural processes, but they abide by certain principles that we can and do take advantage of. All the work the "earth does for us" is part of a process made up of understandable pieces.

You want a good reason for preserving the earth's ecosystems? We'll need to understand and learn from natural processes (yes, using... technology) to recreate and take advantage of them not only for future space exploration, but for our own survival "down here".

See the reason mankind has changed entire landscape and ecosystems is we have a inferiority complex we don't want to admit we are a animal we are just as dependant on Earth as every other animal on this planet.

Eeeyeah... There's also this thing called "survival" that we like to do, and we're hardly the only lifeform on the planet to have drastically changed our surroundings in order to live.

--Romey

[Psycho Fox]

The "earth" doesn't recycle dead organic matter. Worms, insects, bacteria, and a host of other critters do. Yes, these are natural processes, but they abide by certain principles that we can and do take advantage of. All the work the "earth does for us" is part of a process made up of understandable pieces.
Yes and No. The "Earth" is a large interconnect of parts that need each other to work. How can worms, insects,bacteria,ect recycle dead organic matter without plants providing and filtering air? Or the Earth filering water and moving it around? Or the Earth moving and regulating heat? Or the Earth shilding life from radiation from space?


You want a good reason for preserving the earth's ecosystems? We'll need to understand and learn from natural processes (yes, using... technology) to recreate and take advantage of them not only for future space exploration, but for our own survival "down here".
Yet we can never hope of every matching the output of the Earth nor should we try. If it aint broke don't fix it and the Earth is the best life support system we could ever hope for.


Eeeyeah... There's also this thing called "survival" that we like to do, and we're hardly the only lifeform on the planet to have drastically changed our surroundings in order to live.
Look at us humans we don't change our surrounding to "live" we change it for "wealth" a concept fictional to every other animal on the planet. When a beaver floods land they get a use out of it from not only the beavers but other life forms. Yet when we distroy quality farm land for cities it is not based on survival else we would tunnel under farmland since we need it for "survivial". No instead "wealth" is mostly the reason behind the altering our land scape and thus why the eniviorment suffers since our "survival" is not even a factor in economic devlopment, ask anyone in economics and human survival is not even a conceren in devlopment. Meaning the market would distroy every crop on the planet if it would generate wealth.

So while I agree if we can change our enviorment to better our survivial or lives then fine but that hasn't happend in the devloped world for over 2000 years

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Apropos of nothing, check out the Google ads at the bottom of the page (EDIT: shoot...it's gone now, but it was an ad for the "Mars Realty Company"). You, too, can buy land on Mars now, perhaps to set aside for either the Great Mars Mining Company, or as the Mars Natural Wildlife Preserve.

Google ads can be pretty funny, sometimes. Eithe that, or I'm far too easily amused.

:)

We return you now to your regularly scheduled argument.

-- Ed/Ace

[Squall]

So, it seems we can't reach a consensus on whether there is really global warming or not. For every study that says "Yes!" there is another study to counter it that says "No!"... But we can all agree that Earth isn't running out of wilderness anytime soon? That the world isn't being covered over in concrete? And that both fresh water pollution and soil pollution or depletion is a major problem on Earth right now?


...As for the tangent subject of colonizinig and getting natural resources out of the rest of the Sol system in the distant future -- I had no idea that anyone would be against mining and colonizing asteroids, Mars, or the largest moons of Jupiter & Saturn. :confused: And I don't understand why, either. There are no biospheres to protect on Mars, asteroids, or those moons. They're all just hunks of round rocks in space, basically! :p

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

So, it seems we can't reach a consensus on whether there is really global warming or not. For every study that says "Yes!" there is another study to counter it that says "No!"... But we can all agree that Earth isn't running out of wilderness anytime soon? That the world isn't being covered over in concrete? And that both fresh water pollution and soil pollution or depletion is a major problem on Earth right now?

I think there's a lot more science coming down on the side of global warming being real, though. The differences of opinion come from how bad it is, how bad the effects really are (or will ultimately be), and whether its happening naturally or because of human activity. The rest seems more or less accurate.

I had no idea that anyone would be against mining and colonizing asteroids, Mars, or the largest moons of Jupiter & Saturn. :confused: And I don't understand why, either. There are no biospheres to protect on Mars, asteroids, or those moons.

Less against it conceptually and more against it as a silver bullet to solve the problem. If you've got a problem caused by too much digging, you're not going to solve it just by digging more someplace else. To me, exploring for the sake of exploring is as good a reason to go out there as exploitation of resources.

Looking at the state of the copper mining industry (http://www.copper.org/innovations/1998/06/recycle_overview.html) may help illuminate what I'm trying to say. At this moment, US copper supplies are met almost evenly by new ore and by recycling. If I remember right from my days working for the phone company, there was a real concern over domestic copper mines running out of steam at one point (1960's or 70's?), which would have seriously crippled a bunch of industries. This is now no longer a concern because of better mining technologies, widespread recycling of old scrap copper, and new technology that reduces copper usage (fiber optics for copper wire in telecom, for instance).

This is also exactly the same reason I'm against increased domestic oil or natural gas drilling without concomitant and substantive increases in energy efficiency standards. If you've got a problem caused by too much digging, you won't solve it just by digging more someplace else.

-- Ed/Ace

[Psycho Fox]

But we can all agree that Earth isn't running out of wilderness anytime soon?
Well we are logging alot of forest and the way we are not replanting so they will regrow back into wilderness instead if you look at a replanting the trees are in striat rows and of only a few types. Wilernerness don't have trees in striat lines and wildlife don't like them in stait lines since random trees does a far better job of providing cover for wildlife.


...As for the tangent subject of colonizinig and getting natural resources out of the rest of the Sol system in the distant future -- I had no idea that anyone would be against mining and colonizing asteroids, Mars, or the largest moons of Jupiter & Saturn. :confused: And I don't understand why, either. There are no biospheres to protect on Mars, asteroids, or those moons. They're all just hunks of round rocks in space, basically! :p
Yes but it means wasting resources from Earth to mine resources in space.

[Damien]

Then how do you explain fish populations and average fish size have fallen drasticly? I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I said there'll always be fishies swimming in the sea. There are far too many fish in the oceans for the maritime world to cease function because of the surface world.
As far as fish size goes, they perhaps have gotten smaller because of the pollution (or maybe it's all the fishermen catching all the big ones, which would explain both problems :D), but if that's the case, it isn't anything new. That just means they've probably adapted through the years, and although it's a sad adaption, it's probably not as unhealthy for them as we think, because by now, they've, well, adapted.

Those are mainstream solutions.That doesn't mean they lose their value or signifigance. They're not songs or fashions. Mainstream. Who cares? Most public schools have school resource officers to simmer down the violence or illegal activity among students, but I guess that's a little too mainstream. If you'll notice, the last one I mentioned was "Stay in school", just to make the point that they were mainstream and cliched solutions. But they work, and that makes them significant.

Those are just lies to protect the industrilized nations from having to pay island nations that are losing lands due to industries in said countries.
I don't know what to say. I'm speechless. Dumbfounded, really. So I say, when that all happened back thousands, perhaps millions of years ago, was...was that the work of evil corporate lies as well? Like I said, the Earth is overdue for another mood swing. It won't be because of mankind. It's just that time of the millenia.

Also many health problem are starting to be linked to pollution.Again, something that has always been the case.


Wilernerness don't have trees in striat lines and wildlife don't like them in stait lines since random trees does a far better job of providing cover for wildlife.

I don't know how you could know they don't like it, but I do admit that they may find it disorienting.


Yes but it means wasting resources from Earth to mine resources in space.
Ah, now there's something we can agree on. When it comes to the enviorment, getting resources from space is just silly. That's just trying to find a solution by making the problem worse in the process. Kinda like burying a shovel, or trying to build a decent democracy in someone else's country when we can't even fix our own.

[science rules]

[Psycho Fox]

I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I said there'll always be fishies swimming in the sea. There are far too many fish in the oceans for the maritime world to cease function because of the surface world.
Fish size and population has been droping and at a increasing rate. Due to overfishing and pollution there eventully may not be no more fish anywere on Earth.


That doesn't mean they lose their value or signifigance. They're not songs or fashions. Mainstream. Who cares? Most public schools have school resource officers to simmer down the violence or illegal activity among students, but I guess that's a little too mainstream. If you'll notice, the last one I mentioned was "Stay in school", just to make the point that they were mainstream and cliched solutions. But they work, and that makes them significant.

Basicly the mainstream solutions are too little too late. We are talking about flaws in logic of society meaning all the mainstream solutions do is bandaid the problems. We need to question our entire civilazation and ask why the Earth needs to give up so much for a single dollar of wealth and why most of the production in the industral world doesn't help increase quality of life.


I don't know what to say. I'm speechless. Dumbfounded, really. So I say, when that all happened back thousands, perhaps millions of years ago, was...was that the work of evil corporate lies as well? Like I said, the Earth is overdue for another mood swing. It won't be because of mankind. It's just that time of the millenia.
Right now every life support system on Earth is in decline and it can be linked to human stupidity in the blind quest for wealth. Even if Earth is due for another mood swing lets not 'help' by killing us off faster.

[Squall]

Right now every life support system on Earth is in decline and it can be linked to human stupidity in the blind quest for wealth...
This "blind quest for wealth" is the reason why we're not still living in log cabins, spending most of our free time growing and hunting our own food, and sending messages to each other by horse.

[Psycho Fox]

This "blind quest for wealth" is the reason why we're not still living in log cabins, spending most of our free time growing and hunting our own food, and sending messages to each other by horse.The blind quest for wealth is also the primary reason behind our current eviormental crisis plus our humanitarian crisis with half of the Earth populas in poverty. It is also reason behind our democratic crisis with only 10% of the populas controlling 90% of the Earth resources with no responsiblity to the people.

I think it time to stop and rethink if the quest for wealth is really worth the high price which is the eventual extinction of man kind. We are taxing our future generations by striping our enivorment and our life support system yet our future generations don't have a say in it and as someone say that is basicly taxation without repensentation.

[Scythemantis]

I said there'll always be fishies swimming in the sea.

But what kind? It's DIVERSITY that's threatened. Currently, eels - all eels - are on rapid decline as minor changes to the earth's temperature alter their migration patterns. Their larvae are finding it harder and harder to return to fresh water (they are born at sea) and if nothing is done, they'lle go extinct within the next 50-60 years. There is no known way to breed them in captivity.

And yes, I do take the prospect of an eel-free world as seriously as I would a world with no birds or trees. I've spent my whole life studying animals, and I love the stranger, more unique ones...the slugs and worms and salamanders...It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach how most people only care about the larger birds and mammals that consider "cute". People practically laugh at you if you care about a species of insect or fungus, when those are infinitely more valuable to the ecosystem than, say, koala bears.

The growing indifference towards nature in general is nothing short of horrifying. It's become cool not to care. We were actually making quite a bit of progress a few decades back, but pollution has been steadily on the rise as modern culture loosens its concern.

Global Warming does exist, and it is happening because of us. Yes, a small part of it is natural, but it shouldn't be happening anywhere near as fast as this, and it IS driving species extinct as we speak.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

This "blind quest for wealth" is the reason why we're not still living in log cabins, spending most of our free time growing and hunting our own food, and sending messages to each other by horse.

With all due respect, no it isn't. Or, at least, the quest for wealth is not the ONLY driving factor for civilization. While there are a bunch of civilization advancements which were made due to a profit motive (the cotton gin and the assembly line come to mind immediately), there have been lots of civilization advancements which were never driven by a quest for wealth. Alexander Graham Bell, Bell Labs, and Xerox PARC didn't build any of their stuff with the thought of making money off what they did, but without them we wouldn't have the modern digital computer or the Internet.

You can say that some advancements, like those in shelter and food gathering, came to be out of a desire to better the environment and even the odds of survival, but that's not the same thing and I don't think that's not what Psycho Fox is talking about.

You know what I never understood? I never understood why the paper companies and lumber companies weren't the FIRST ones in line to champion reforestation projects and controlled cutting. No trees means no product and no more money for them, and you'd think they'd recognize the long-term value in reforestation. They don't. Why? "It would cut into our profit margins excessively." The auto industry fights tooth and nail against improved fuel efficiency and the energy industry fights against improved pollution standards. Why? "It would cut into our profit margins."

THAT'S destructive profit motivation.

-- Ed/Ace

[Squall]

With all due respect...
It's OK. ;) You can't start a debate and then be shocked when you recieve a rebuttal... :p But don't be surprised when another rebuttal comes right back! LOL

[Psycho Fox]

Howdy,

With all due respect, no it isn't. Or, at least, the quest for wealth is not the ONLY driving factor for civilization. While there are a bunch of civilization advancements which were made due to a profit motive (the cotton gin and the assembly line come to mind immediately), there have been lots of civilization advancements which were never driven by a quest for wealth. Alexander Graham Bell, Bell Labs, and Xerox PARC didn't build any of their stuff with the thought of making money off what they did, but without them we wouldn't have the modern digital computer or the Internet.

You can say that some advancements, like those in shelter and food gathering, came to be out of a desire to better the environment and even the odds of survival, but that's not the same thing and I don't think that's not what Psycho Fox is talking about.


Right the whole PC was born from "production for use" not "production for wealth" meaning the PC came to be becouse a bunch of hobbiest built it for other hobbiest. Read the interview of the founders of MITS, once MITS made money (which they never intended to do) it wasn't fun anymore and they left. Also while some companies do make money off Linux (or try) you can still get it legally for free (in both meaning of the term) from coders that are not intrested in generating wealth from Linux.

Even the cartoons that we love so much, from managment side yes they are created for wealth but alot of artist have other motives creating them then getting paided.


You know what I never understood? I never understood why the paper companies and lumber companies weren't the FIRST ones in line to champion reforestation projects and controlled cutting. No trees means no product and no more money for them, and you'd think they'd recognize the long-term value in reforestation. They don't. Why? "It would cut into our profit margins excessively." The auto industry fights tooth and nail against improved fuel efficiency and the energy industry fights against improved pollution standards. Why? "It would cut into our profit margins."

That is a flaw in "production for wealth" the paper and lumber companies. To them a tree is worthless till it is cutdown and turned into wealth and they don't want to replant becouse all of the managment would retire before they run out of trees so the money they spend replanting won't be recovered by them but the people that replaces them.

[Squall]

You know what I never understood? I never understood why the paper companies and lumber companies weren't the FIRST ones in line to champion reforestation projects and controlled cutting. No trees means no product and no more money for them, and you'd think they'd recognize the long-term value in reforestation. They don't. Why? "It would cut into our profit margins excessively." The auto industry fights tooth and nail against improved fuel efficiency and the energy industry fights against improved pollution standards. Why? "It would cut into our profit margins."

THAT'S destructive profit motivation.

-- Ed/Ace
It might cut into their short-term profit margins, but would devastate their business long-term when they ran out of trees to cut. :shrug: I just attributed that to short-term thinking on the part of the loggers of that time period. Do not doubt human stupidity; it's the cause of 99% of the problems on this planet. :p

[Psycho Fox]

It might cut into their short-term profit margins, but would devastate their business long-term when they ran out of trees to cut. :shrug: I just attributed that to short-term thinking on the part of the loggers of that time period. Do not doubt human stupidity; it's the cause of 99% of the problems on this planet. :p
As I said most managers don't care what happends after they retire. To them if they run out of trees it won't be their problem as they will be retired by then.