Are we REALLY killing our planet?

[The_Animus]

The only want, aside from occasional disasters, comes in countries that are decidedly not free and capitalist.

That is because those countries are kept that way in order to provide us all our consumer goods. Companies negotiate with these governments in order to claim resource and land rights in these countries and employ the people for sweatshop wages.

Our comfort isn't built upon a magical and wondrous capitalist system. It's based off the exploitation. Both of resources and labor from people who have no other option.

We had a speaker from Lebanon come to our campus to talk about her country and capitalism's effect on it. According to her, big business makes deals with the government to set up shop there. The business gets to take tons of the countries resources, including energy, which leaves a large chunk of the population without power because the business uses what little they have. The people are employed for pathetic wages, but thanks to the government and business support of each other its not like they get to own any of their own resources and therefor only have their labor to sell to keep them alive. The people don't like this, and in some instances will protest, though this leaves them enemies of the government, just like her. She had to use a fake name in order to protect her identity.

Obviously this isn't always the case, and I'm not entirely against capitalism. It certainly has its benefits, but it also has its flaws and I don't believe it is a system that can ultimately benefit everyone.

 

[Erigena]

MikeSun5 is creating a strawman here. He personally refers to, multiple times, sources that say the planet will be destroyed within a generation. He has linked to none of them. He has cited none of them. He has asked people to defend something that he has no proof exists.

He can't link to these sources, because anything he finds will be significantly more intelligent than he is painting it. Thus, he is doomed to carry around this strawman, or admit it's a man of straw.

He has been proven wrong on any particulars he has cited.

- The Great Pacific Garbage Patch exists.
- Global Warming exists, and is occurring at a significant pace
- Mass extinctions are possible
- Enabling the deaths of millions of people through negligence is possible

MikeSun5 sees nothing to worry about because a fisherman in Bangladesh sees nothing to worry about. The same fisherman also probably thinks that the lucky yellow rock he's carrying around is a gift from the gods.

Why is he an idiot when he's carting around uranium, but some super-genius when he doesn't care about the environment? He's a goddamn fisherman.

Basic facts:
- Environmental change can kill millions of people
- Environmental change can damage the farming we rely on for food
- Mass extinctions have been caused by things like overfishing (see: Bangladesh fishermen)
- Pollution causes dozens of nasty health effects, including birth defects, cancer, brain damage, poisoning, long-term nerve damage, and death
- Your ignorance is killing people

You should read his posts a little more carefully. He did not say there was nothing to worry about. In fact, he agreed that we are damaging the environment. The size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is what was called into question.

 

[ConspiRaider]

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.

 

[boloboffin]

Click on Full Screen. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[GreyICE]

You should read his posts a little more carefully. He did not say there was nothing to worry about. In fact, he agreed that we are damaging the environment. The size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is what was called into question.

You may wish to read the thread more carefully yourself. It appears you have missed the point in entire.

 

[MikeSun5]

MikeSun5 is creating a strawman here.

I'd list links, but most people on this forum are well versed in google. Send me a PM if you need help with that.

All your silly insults aside, read the first sentence of the post - the one you obviously missed. That is what I'm wondering.

...and where were your links? Just kidding, I can find them.

 

[MikeSun5]

Just noticed...

MikeSun5 is creating a strawman here.

The pot...

MikeSun5 sees nothing to worry about ...

...and the kettle. Black is beautiful.

 

[GreyICE]

Well, when you can't respond to the point, respond to 10% of the point and hope no one notices. Nice job. In reality, it's not as bad as the media says it is, it's a hell of a lot worse than the media says it is. The UN is predicting millions of deaths in the coming century (possibly hundreds of millions) from Global Warming, and the media is questioning if it is even occurring. THAT is what your media is telling you.

 

[casebro]

I'll accept global warming, it's AGW that I doubt.

But, whatever the cause, even if the warming continues, I don't think all that many will die. We are too adaptive, an few more degree average won't kill us. Nor will a rise in sea level, we know how to build boats, and drive busses to higher ground. And there will be a give away/take away balance of the temperate zones. Less land area, arable land expanded. Some deserts will expand, more rain in some deserts. Life will change, not end.

The UN is wrong.

Actually, BILLIONS of us will die! Within the next 100 years! Yup, that's all of us. What might happen is that our birthrate may lower due to bad economies.

 

[DC]

All evidence so far points to modern capitalism being able to supply more and more food and nutrition for more and more people. The only want, aside from occasional disasters, comes in countries that are decidedly not free and capitalist.

The prediction is simple and has been found correct time and again: Barring government intervention (a key point), economic measures increase over time. The Ultimate Resource II

So pick what you want to measure, food per acre, calories or nutrition available per person, cost of a day's food per person, longevity, clothing, price of goods, and so on, they're always improving*.



So, no. The only way the Earth will become uninhabitable for modern society will be if we succumb to scare tactics and allow the government to institute controls over production.

And yes, that implies that dirty environment + free capitalism still increases those factors faster than "clean" environment + great strictures on production.

And that makes people angry to think that, the way an atheist makes a Christian angry by saying, well, how can God sit there while children are raped to death?











* With a minimum granularity of 10 years, and ideally somewhat more.

without Governments intervention Capitalist companys will not take care about Nature, even less than we do today. Its only after several disasters that governments actually do something. Companys do not care, they only care about profit, and taking care about nature is a problem when you only focus on profit.

 

[I Ratant]

On government interference with living, P.J. O'Rourke in "All The Trouble In The World" when he's relating his experience in Somalia, driving relief packages of food thru croplands overflowing with food, quotes Professor Amaryta Sen...
"There has never been a famine in a country that's been a democracy with a relatively free press.
I know of no exception.
It applies to very poor countries with democracies, as well as rich ones."
.
So as long as we can bitch about everything as we do here, what problems man creates towards man have a potential for a survivable solution.

 

[Erigena]

You may wish to read the thread more carefully yourself. It appears you have missed the point in entire.

The thread discussion is about the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and our level of contribution to the destruction of the environment which is exactly what I commented on.

Regarding the ambiguity of the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, here are two of many links that describe it. They are not consistent. I never said it didn't exist or that it wasn't a problem. I'm questioning the size of it because there isn't a consensus among researchers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6206498.ece

http://www.naturalnews.com/022802.html

 

[Cavemonster]

The thread discussion is about the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and our level of contribution to the destruction of the environment which is exactly what I commented on.

Regarding the ambiguity of the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, here are two of many links that describe it. They are not consistent. I never said it didn't exist or that it wasn't a problem. I'm questioning the size of it because there isn't a consensus among researchers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6206498.ece

http://www.naturalnews.com/022802.html

That second article was written by this woman

Wife, Mother of 8, and Grandmother of 2
Jo is a 41 year old home educator who has always gravitated toward a natural approach to life. She enjoys learning as much as possible about just about anything!

If you have any experience reading short author bios, you'll notice that it left out any mention of any other publications, honors or most of the content that normally fills this space. Not that there's anything wrong with a homeschooling Grandma, just the lack of other credentials is clear.

Notice also that the article is over a year old and published in a journal that also contains articles on how healthy raw milk is.

The web is a big place, I can find articles and blog posts that misquote just about everything, and a lot of that will be due to the level of expertise of the writer.

The experts are in agreement. Mainstream news and science sources (published within the last year) are in agreement. It is important not to mistake popular confusion for scientific confusion.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, with as many species as are threatened, endangered or recently extinct, we are doing damage.

We won't kill the earth though. Make it uninhabitable for modern human society, possibly.

Exactly, we can sure wipe ourselves out.

 

[GreyICE]

I'll accept global warming, it's AGW that I doubt.

But, whatever the cause, even if the warming continues, I don't think all that many will die. We are too adaptive, an few more degree average won't kill us. Nor will a rise in sea level, we know how to build boats, and drive busses to higher ground. And there will be a give away/take away balance of the temperate zones. Less land area, arable land expanded. Some deserts will expand, more rain in some deserts. Life will change, not end.

The UN is wrong.

Actually, BILLIONS of us will die! Within the next 100 years! Yup, that's all of us. What might happen is that our birthrate may lower due to bad economies.

It's a good thing that you are smarter than a group of assembled international experts who examined this issue in great detail.

They say millions will die if projections continue. You're sure we'll be fine. I know who I trust - and it ain't the guy who has done about no research.

 

[MikeSun5]

They say millions will die if projections continue. You're sure we'll be fine. I know who I trust - and it ain't the guy who has done about no research.

Okay then, with your infinite "research"... who are "they," and what "projections?" When you use verbage like that, you must cite your sources. As far as your statement, millions are going to die anyway, no matter what.
Besides, the title of the thread is "are we killing our PLANET?" We are most definitely killing the people in it, and I guarantee if you pull up your sources that say "millions will die," that those "millions" referred to will be in third world countries where the death rate is already staggering. Attributing "millions" of deaths to global warming is just data mining. The effects of global warming have been scientifically proven time and time again to be unmeasurable.
These guys cite their sources, if you feel like digging.

The point of this thread isn't to debate humans' negative impact on earth. Take a ride in an airplane and look down. You'll see it. Saying I "don't see anything to worry about" is both false and simply a dumb thing to say. The point of this thread is to question how much the media fabricates to scare people into "going green" or buying this or that new product (not plastic, PLEASE). Some have already questioned the media about it, and I think they should be questioned. I believe this planet will outlive our species. We are not going to break Earth.

 

[GreyICE]

Okay then, with your infinite "research"... who are "they," and what "projections?" When you use verbage like that, you must cite your sources. As far as your statement, millions are going to die anyway, no matter what.
Besides, the title of the thread is "are we killing our PLANET?" We are most definitely killing the people in it, and I guarantee if you pull up your sources that say "millions will die," that those "millions" referred to will be in third world countries where the death rate is already staggering. Attributing "millions" of deaths to global warming is just data mining. The effects of global warming have been scientifically proven time and time again to be unmeasurable.
These guys cite their sources, if you feel like digging.

Huh? Unmeasurable?

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/files/sydimc/images/Arctic_seaice_extent_2007_0.png

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The point of this thread isn't to debate humans' negative impact on earth. Take a ride in an airplane and look down. You'll see it. Saying I "don't see anything to worry about" is both false and simply a dumb thing to say. The point of this thread is to question how much the media fabricates to scare people into "going green" or buying this or that new product (not plastic, PLEASE). Some have already questioned the media about it, and I think they should be questioned. I believe this planet will outlive our species. We are not going to break Earth.

Answer: Very little. See, you've decided that the media is sensationalist and scare mongering. This is generally true, but you've failed to identify WHY.

The media is sensationalist because it's easier to get people to tune in when the see your show and see ads for your show and feel that there is something immediately dangerous that you have to learn about now.

Global warming? A giant garbage patch in the pacific ocean? These are not the sort of dangers that get ratings. The media is much better off trying to create some sort of controversy about facts. Inhofe is an idiot, and he's no sort of scientist. You believing him is pathetic. Link me some real scientists. You think your bible thumping senator is telling you anything useful? He's spent more time comparing global warming to the third reich than he has looking at real science. Take your religious nonsense elsewhere, talk about science with science.

You talk about Green technology like it's some giant conspiracy, some game the media plays with unnamed shady people in darkened rooms to force on an innocent public.

Do you really think that a couple of green companies, making a few million dollars compares to the amount of money the status quo has, or can throw at the 'problem?'

 

[Beerina]

That is because those countries are kept that way in order to provide us all our consumer goods. Companies negotiate with these governments in order to claim resource and land rights in these countries and employ the people for sweatshop wages.

If you have an issue with the way our government allows companies to deal with foreign dictatorships, I would be the first to agree with you. But you must also keep in mind that can raise the local quality of life, even with "sweatshop wages". Wages...compared to what, for someone living on a dirt floor? Westerners tut-tutt from a position of wealth about how horribly those are treated, when reality treats them far worse.

Our comfort isn't built upon a magical and wondrous capitalist system. It's based off the exploitation. Both of resources and labor from people who have no other option.

"No other option?" As a rhetorical device, that sounds ominous. Too bad it isn't true.

And, were their countries freer, such that local capitalism could invest more without fear of local warlords seizing tons of profit, if not the capital itself before it gets a chance to build anything, they most decidedly would have more options -- including the option to start a business themselves.

Ayn Rand once mocked a poem or something that waxed about how horrible was life in "a world I never made" -- her response? "Why didn't you?"

We had a speaker from Lebanon come to our campus to talk about her country and capitalism's effect on it. According to her, big business makes deals with the government to set up shop there. The business gets to take tons of the countries resources, including energy, which leaves a large chunk of the population without power because the business uses what little they have.

Normally, the "country's resources", such as electricity, are generated by private concerns. They would therefore increase output to cover everybody. Given they get a profit per amount of electricity sold, it is in their interests to do so.

Now let me stick my tongue in my cheek and ask, "Why aren't the private businesses that provide electricity in Lebanon stepping up to the plate?"

The people are employed for pathetic wages, but thanks to the government and business support of each other its not like they get to own any of their own resources and therefor only have their labor to sell to keep them alive.

This is an issue with governments and the presumed right they have to an all-encompassing control over your life. People in the West often suffer from this disease, too, though they seem to think that just because a slim democratic majority approves it, that it won't be a problem.

The people don't like this, and in some instances will protest, though this leaves them enemies of the government, just like her. She had to use a fake name in order to protect her identity.

Obviously this isn't always the case, and I'm not entirely against capitalism. It certainly has its benefits, but it also has its flaws and I don't believe it is a system that can ultimately benefit everyone.

Capitalism is about the freedom to invest without someone with a gun, be they mafia or government, telling you you can't do that, or have to give a kickback.

What you have described eviscerates the core of what makes capitalism powerful.


All I have to say is South Korea vs. North Korea, or Hong Kong vs. the rest of China (especially 10+ years ago.) You do the math.

 

[MikeSun5]

Huh? Unmeasurable?

...irrelevant links...

We know the temperature's getting warmer. I said the EFFECTS are unmeasurable. Someone who drops childish insults so routinely should probably pay attention more. The "projections" you linked to didn't say anything about millions dying.

The media is sensationalist because it's easier to get people to tune in when the see your show and see ads for your show and feel that there is something immediately dangerous that you have to learn about now.

Global warming? A giant garbage patch in the pacific ocean? These are not the sort of dangers that get ratings. The media is much better off trying to create some sort of controversy about facts.

So we're in agreement. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead. That's my point exactly. Thank you.

Inhofe is an idiot, and he's no sort of scientist. You believing him is pathetic. Link me some real scientists. You think your bible thumping senator is telling you anything useful? He's spent more time comparing global warming to the third reich than he has looking at real science. Take your religious nonsense elsewhere, talk about science with science.

At what point did I claim he was a scientist? At what point did I say I believed him? At what point did I claim any religious nonsense? You're as insulting as you are oblivious. Please pay attention and read the posts.

You talk about Green technology like it's some giant conspiracy, some game the media plays with unnamed shady people in darkened rooms to force on an innocent public.

You obviously read one thing and understand another. This is getting old fast.

 

[GreyICE]

We know the temperature's getting warmer. I said the EFFECTS are unmeasurable. Someone who drops childish insults so routinely should probably pay attention more. The "projections" you linked to didn't say anything about millions dying.

I link you to the graph of the sea ice melting more and more and more. You tell me there's no effects.

It's like reality has no bearing on your rhetoric here.

You obviously read one thing and understand another. This is getting old fast.

You know what? I agree. I'm done talking to someone who takes the word of a bible thumping senator supported by a bevy of industrial interests over scientists, and who thinks that there's no effects when I link him effects.