• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Are we REALLY killing our planet?

No, we can not kill the planet, yes we can make it so human life as we know it is untenable. If you look at the overall scenario, no we will not destroy all life on the planet.

But we could certainly marginalize our species or cause it to perish. That is what this thread is about.
 
I'm wondering exactly how much we're really damaging our planet through pollution and waste, as opposed to what the media tells us...

Some of the excitement about global warming has subsided in the wake of scientific proof, and I still haven't seen any pictures of this "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" that's supposedly twice the size of Texas (or twice the size of France, depending on who's reporting). As far as melting ice caps and the like, there have been substantial climate fluctuations in the past -- maybe we're on the upswing of a Dansgaard-Oeschger event or something?

I know full well that humans' habits of resource consumption and trash disposal (or lack thereof) are certainly not helping the situation, but I can't help but wonder how much of that is inflated by the media and others as a scare tactic?

I saw the great George Carlin in Santa Barbara who said that the planet is going to shake us off like a bad cold.
 
Here's a much more accurate, tested prediction, by an economist, which is who you want to talk to when discussing the future of the human condition.

Basically, the human condition will continue to improve with the protection of private rights, including property, from both lawlessness and overbearing government intervention, with a minimum granularity of 10 years, and preferably somewhat more.


So if "millions" die, it will be because governments got in the way, or were unable to stop local warlords from ruling, or were themselves oppressive.

I can no longer watch the old PBS rendition of Lathe of Heaven without seeing that their long term, chronic condition of want is the result, in the long term, not of the constant rain, but of government rationing preventing capitalism from rising to the occasion to provide more and more food until the shelves are crammed.



In any case, a billion or so moving inland a little over the course of a century or so, barely indistinguishable from normal housing development, is not damaging. However, global cooling, especially if it induces an ice age that comes on within a few years, as is the current thinking for ice ages, IIRC, will indeed kill billiions.



So, to sum up:

  1. "Worst" of global warming is so protracted as to be almost unnoticeable
  2. Government rationing and severe interference trying to save the situation will be far worse than the worst of global warming
  3. For example, in 50 years, air conditioning went from expensive luxury to almost omnipresence in the US. What, then, 100 years or more in an even more powerful economy?
  4. The reverse, sudden onset of an ice age because of amelioration attempts, is truly murderous

I dunno, economists haven't really been on target of late. I would never trust them for any predictions on technology. Most have never taken any science classes.

Simon doesn't seem to understand that technologies reach saturation points...and the laws of thermo are will always present limits. The link you cited is filled with cherry picked data and generalizations from the distant past. Dramatic changes in technology typically occur early on, but approach limits over the decades. (my PC doesn't really do much more than the one I had 10 years ago and there doesn't seem to be a paradignm shift on the horizon. ) For energy, the situation is worse. The laws of thermo don't allow us to create energy out of nothing. Unless fusion becomes a reality, there hasn't been any real change in energy production since nuclear power was developed. Fusion requires that dreaded government intervention too.

He fails to cite Hubberts accurate prediction of peak oil in the US and its implications. Living with plentiful oil for so many years, most people don't understand how the economy is based on cheap energy. Population growth continues, but energy growth is soon to reverse course. Free markets can't cure everything and of course, recent evidence indicates how much damage they can do.

I don't think global warming is going to be much of an issue compared with other economic and political issues. We have burned billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal. Millions of years of carbon sequestration...basically released in a few hundred years--something has gotta happen. And I doubt it will be beneficial.

glenn
 
You can think what you want, but your constant need to self-defensively paint me as some terrible aggressor and you as some innocent victim in a Monty Python skit instead of addressing what I'm saying (you've never even commented on why I'm supposed to believe that fanatic Inhofe, much less explained that link) leaves us all cold.

Please read the posts. I've explained it at least four times. I provided that link to show the only example of someone who has questioned the media. I have since regretted it, as you seem to be able to focus on nothing else.

My underlining the childishness and pathetic qualities of this victim line should show how much it hurts. Take a cue from Whiplash - he used to spend most of his time outraged and offended, until it became banal. Now he's a decent poster.

Well, I'm glad you've taken it upon yourself to whip people into "decent posters." How many are you at now? Seriously though... do you think calling someone ignorant in your first post really would incite "rational discussion?" I haven't called you ignorant. No need. Your posts speak for themselves.

any case, this is my last effort here.

I doubt that. Fool me once...

If, by now, you really don't understand how pathetic this self-righteous outrage is, and how pathetic an excuse it is for the poor quality of your 'facts' and 'reasoning,' I really cannot explain it to you further. You yourself have not explained away the lack of quality, beyond 'gee, it's really mean of you to point out I have no rational argument or reliable sources.'

You complain about my lack of facts, but you posted only TWO links (both of which said the same thing -- neither of which backed up your claims). I really don't know why I'm humoring you... Here's a link that shows what I've been saying: scientists disagree as to what's going on. The causes of certain "global warming effects" can't necessarily get attributed to global warming. This is the report that the IPCC and Al Gore got a Nobel Prize for. I'm sure that saving the earth was their motivation... it couldn't be the millions in endorsements or the cash prize associated with the Nobel. Here is a scientist's more skeptical approach. And apparently this is all GreyICE is going to see.
 
I feel like I'm in that Monty Python skit with the argument clinic.

No you don't.

yes as Marketing tool. but not becuase they really care, just because its a good tool to make more money.

Yes, that's the whole point of capitalism. Does it matter? If someone develops cleaner technology, why would it matter if they did so because they desperately want to make the world a better place or simply because they thought it would make money? All that matters is that the technology has been developed.

The problem that captialism has is that there is no way to ensure the incentive actually exists. If public opinion didn't decide that cleaner technology is a good idea, there is no reason for a purely capitalist society to develop it. However, that's not a problem in this case because we already know that public opinion has decided cleaner technology is good, and many people are already trying to exploit it. Of course, there is no guarantee that what is presented as clean genuinely is, but that would be just as much a problem in any other society.
 
I spoke to a Navyman once, who claimed that all of the garbage they created on board, was compacted, plastic wrapped, and set adrift near land based artilary ranges to be used as naval targets, "...because they could take a lot of sink".
False statement.

The general rule of garbage dumping was, even as long ago as the 1980's, fifty miles or more off shore.

Now and again, when at sea, we'd shoot at some of the garbage tossed over the side, but not with artillery.

Machine guns and small arms.

Your recollection is not quite there with reality.

DR
 
False statement.

The general rule of garbage dumping was, even as long ago as the 1980's, fifty miles or more off shore.

Now and again, when at sea, we'd shoot at some of the garbage tossed over the side, but not with artillery.

Machine guns and small arms.

Your recollection is not quite there with reality.

DR


There is a great scene in Desolate Island by Patrick OBrian where they are in doldrums and their garbage is strewn in the current along with them, much to Stephen's annoyance.
 
No you don't.

nice.

Yes, that's the whole point of capitalism. Does it matter? If someone develops cleaner technology, why would it matter if they did so because they desperately want to make the world a better place or simply because they thought it would make money? All that matters is that the technology has been developed.

The problem that captialism has is that there is no way to ensure the incentive actually exists. If public opinion didn't decide that cleaner technology is a good idea, there is no reason for a purely capitalist society to develop it. However, that's not a problem in this case because we already know that public opinion has decided cleaner technology is good, and many people are already trying to exploit it. Of course, there is no guarantee that what is presented as clean genuinely is, but that would be just as much a problem in any other society.

Very good points, especially the last one. Who's to say the clean products are actually clean? The people who told us we needed them in the first place?
Although come to think of it, even if public opinion decides clean technology is needed, the incentive still isn't there for the manufacturers because the current method of operation makes too much money. If I came up with a wind-powered car tomorrow that performs identical to gas-powered cars, but costs nothing to fuel up, I'm sure I'd be met with some hardcore opposition trying to patent it and get it on the assembly line. Huge companies that aren't supposed to be great for the envrionment don't want to give up their steady income. Who would?
 
Edited this some, from when I'd first written it several years ago:

It's early Monday morning of the Week that Wasn't.

Mother Nature sits at her kitchen table and sips java, the first cup of the day. The one that always tastes best. She raises her eyes and gazes out the kitchen window at the Little Blue Planet she'd set up way back when.

She'd been up late last night, on the phone with her counterpart over in Andromeda. They talked about this and that. Discussed the impending galactic collision between Andromeda and Milky Way. Kidded each other about which would become "dominant" afterwards, and argued good-naturedly about which had more, and better, stellar stuff. Banal talk, really. The collision was scheduled 3 billion years hence or so. Still, Mother Nature mentioned, with a touch of pride, that the dominant land animal on her Little Blue Planet had projected the collision quite accurately, awhile ago. Her counterpart tried, but failed to mask her awe at this impressive tidbit. "What do you call them again?", she wanted to know.

They referred to themselves by various terms, appropriate to the diverse sounds they made for communicating. But not long ago, Mother Nature had started referring to them as The Destructors. That's how she mentioned them to her galactic phone pal. "The Destructors did this and have I mentioned The Destructors doing that...", and so forth.

There is something very wrong this morning. Mother Nature's "radar" has pinged and she is trying to get her mind around it. The sound coming from the Little Blue Planet today... Such an odd sound! What the hell is it? Mother Nature races through her mental checklist at lightning speed, correlating, analyzing, pattern matching... Nothing. Then, of course, it hits her. It's what she ISN'T hearing that tripped her internal alarm. Because this morning, to her astonishment, Mother Nature does not hear the crying of a baby Destructor. She takes a seat at a kitchen chair closer to the window, and focuses in on what is happening with The Destructors.

There is only one group of Destructors left, a few hundred or so. Over the eons, Mother Nature had become quite adept at reading them, roughly interpreting their thoughts. She now scans faces within this last band of Destructors at point-blank range. Her heart flutters a bit. Because she knows that they know. The Destructors realize that with the death of their final baby Destructor last night, there won't be any more. All the female Destructors are unable to produce any more Destructor offspring. They've tried. Everything. To no avail. As Mother Nature watches the flitting eyes of The Destructors, she reads a growing, quiet terror. These Destructors understand that they are the final page in The Destructor line. There won't be any more, after they are gone.

Of course, Mother Nature could have told them this day was coming. That isn't her way, though. Balance and self-correction are woven into the fabric of Nature. That's how she fashioned it way back when. There came a point when Mother Nature knew that this species, The Destructors, would self-correct its own kind right out of existence.

She knew it when Destructor mothers could no longer breast feed their offspring. Because of poisons, such as vaporized mercury, flung with abandon into the environment by The Destructors. She knew it when The Destructors actually invented something that she herself hadn't come up with: Plutonium. The most poisonous substance to be now found on the Little Blue Planet. She knew it when their freon gas and ammonia and chlorofluorocarbons rose into their atmosphere and destroyed the protective ozone layer. She knew it when their noisy, gassy, explosive machines they used for transportation and power generation altered the chemical balance of the air. Altering the climate - faster than they could adapt to it. She knew it when they drained wetlands and covered the ground with impervious substances like concrete and asphalt, nullifying the cleansing and recycling actions that she, Mother Nature, had painstakingly evolved.

When any of her species departs, Mother Nature has a bit of a bad day, and then she moves on. This species, The Destructors, surprised even her for a time. She remembered her amazement that day when The Destructors sent something away from the Little Blue Planet to travel to, and land upon, the Little Red Planet. She thought they had promise. She thought they understood.

Mother Nature believes that on the morning she looks out at the Little Blue Planet and spots no Destructors, she'll sob a little. She's seen a hundred million species come and go. But this one, The Destructors, is the first who KNEW it was going to go out of existence. She feels a bit of their pain. It will be an especially bad day for her then, she projects. Yet, she'll gather herself together, and move on. She's Mother Nature. And that is what she does - how she survives.
Amidst all the furor over Osama bin Laden, this was released today:

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/new-report-confirms-arctic-melt-accelerating/6227857/

Fortunately here in the USA, we have entrenched propagandists on our national radio talk shows who will reassure the tell-us-what-we-want-to-hear folks that scientists are wrong, are only after glory, can never be trusted and "No!", dear listener - you did not spawn from a monkey and evolution is a cruel joke.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom