[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, if you want to get metaphysical and not be concerned for the health and wellbeing of living things on the planet, such as humans, then sure, we can’t “harm” the planet.[/quote]
Now you are changing the subject. Your first concern was the human ‘footprint’. Now it is the health and well being of living beings.
How is our consumption, and ultimately the waste produced by that consumption harming other humans? The damn place is exploding with humans, and you think we need to look out for them? Please.,. You have been utterly thrashed in this thread, and now you want to change the subject.
Harming ourselves was not the subject. Global Warming. Remember? Focus on the topic, and quit making up new ones.
Exactly what types of toxins are released on your dinner plate? Now I will admit to deadly toxins being released, but it is usually after a heaping helping of black beans.
[quote]I suppose that makes it better… since we aren’t actually “damaging the planet”.
[/quote]
Tell us how we are damaging the planet, vroom. Just saying the word does not mean it is true.
Tell us how we are damaging the planet, vroom. Just saying the word does not mean it is true.[/quote]
I don’t understand this mentality. This planet is a living system on top of molten rock and iron. While the planet itself may continue being round and float onward in space, to think that the living system on top of it connecting every living thing on it can’t be harmed by those living on it is retarded.
Our life times on this planet are blinks of an eye so us “proving” this statement to you will be possible the moment humans can live for thousands of years to observe things directly. Until then, thinking of the planet like a living body would make more sense than walking around believing that we won’t eventually harm ourselves if we keep populating it and spitting on it. In those terms, the closest analogy to mankind on this planet would be that of a virus.
Tell us how we are damaging the planet, vroom. Just saying the word does not mean it is true.
I don’t understand this mentality. This planet is a living system on top of molten rock and iron. While the planet itself may continue being round and float onward in space, to think that the living system on top of it connecting every living thing on it can’t be harmed by those living on it is retarded.
Our life times on this planet are blinks of an eye so us “proving” this statement to you will be possible the moment humans can live for thousands of years to observe things directly. Until then, thinking of the planet like a living body would make more sense than walking around believing that we won’t eventually harm ourselves if we keep populating it and spitting on it. In those terms, the closest analogy to mankind on this planet would be that of a virus.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Our life times on this planet are blinks of an eye so us “proving” this statement to you will be possible the moment humans can live for thousands of years to observe things directly. Until then, thinking of the planet like a living body would make more sense than walking around believing that we won’t eventually harm ourselves if we keep populating it and spitting on it. In those terms, the closest analogy to mankind on this planet would be that of a virus.[/quote]
What is retarded here is when people can’t understand the fucking subject of the thread. That would include you.
Look - when a single volcanic erpution can do more environmental damage than everything the humans have “done” to the earth since the beginning to time - it seems to me that we are nothing more than a bunch of army ants at a picnic.
Irritating as hell? Absolutely. Dangerous caretakers of this “body” called earth? Give me a fucking break.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Our life times on this planet are blinks of an eye so us “proving” this statement to you will be possible the moment humans can live for thousands of years to observe things directly. Until then, thinking of the planet like a living body would make more sense than walking around believing that we won’t eventually harm ourselves if we keep populating it and spitting on it. In those terms, the closest analogy to mankind on this planet would be that of a virus.
What is retarded here is when people can’t understand the fucking subject of the thread. That would include you.
Look - when a single volcanic erpution can do more environmental damage than everything the humans have “done” to the earth since the beginning to time - it seems to me that we are nothing more than a bunch of army ants at a picnic.
Irritating as hell? Absolutely. Dangerous caretakers of this “body” called earth? Give me a fucking break.
[/quote]
…you’d be right about the vulcano-thing if it weren’t for other factors. If the planet would be untouched, an eruption would not cause that much damage, and gigantic vulcano eruptions are few and far between.
However, mankind is destroying natural resources at an alarming pace. The equatorial rainforests are still cut by loggers, and the northern arboreal forest wait the same fate…
…we’ve almost reached a point were earth can’t maintain a natural status-quo between pollution and absorption of pollutants. If we continue to pollute and destroy earths ability to counter that pollution, it won’t be that long before we suffer the consequences…
…perhaps it won’t be within your lifetime, but surely you agree that we need to pass on this planet in such a condition that ensures prolonged habitation?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Our life times on this planet are blinks of an eye so us “proving” this statement to you will be possible the moment humans can live for thousands of years to observe things directly. Until then, thinking of the planet like a living body would make more sense than walking around believing that we won’t eventually harm ourselves if we keep populating it and spitting on it. In those terms, the closest analogy to mankind on this planet would be that of a virus.
What is retarded here is when people can’t understand the fucking subject of the thread. That would include you.
Look - when a single volcanic erpution can do more environmental damage than everything the humans have “done” to the earth since the beginning to time - it seems to me that we are nothing more than a bunch of army ants at a picnic.
Irritating as hell? Absolutely. Dangerous caretakers of this “body” called earth? Give me a fucking break.
…you’d be right about the vulcano-thing if it weren’t for other factors. If the planet would be untouched, an eruption would not cause that much damage, and gigantic vulcano eruptions are few and far between.
However, mankind is destroying natural resources at an alarming pace. The equatorial rainforests are still cut by loggers, and the northern arboreal forest wait the same fate…
…we’ve almost reached a point were earth can’t maintain a natural status-quo between pollution and absorption of pollutants. If we continue to pollute and destroy earths ability to counter that pollution, it won’t be that long before we suffer the consequences…
…perhaps it won’t be within your lifetime, but surely you agree that we need to pass on this planet in such a condition that ensures prolonged habitation?
[/quote]
Great post. To compare our use of resources, the destruction of the rainforests, the killing off of entire species of animals and plants that might actually hold cures to our own diseases…to volcanoe eruptions is a little misguided. Volcanoes are destructive, however, much like fire cleanses the area it touches and allows new life to breed they are nothing like LAND FILLS.
New life can come from destruction by fire eventually assuming there is eventual plant growth and the return of a viable ecosystem. There isn’t any new life coming directly from the cleansing power of an oil spill.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you’d be right about the vulcano-thing if it weren’t for other factors. If the planet would be untouched, an eruption would not cause that much damage, and gigantic vulcano eruptions are few and far between.[/quote]
It’s volcano. Not a character on Star Trek.
But as to what you say - it makes absolutely no sense. “If the planet would be untouched”? What the hell does that even mean?
If volcanic erpuptions were any more common - earth would not be able to sustain life. That’s how “untouched” volcanic eruptions leave the earth.
I don’t understand what that has to do with the earth’s ability to sustain life. It’s trees. We call those renewable resorces. Not depletable resources.
Alarming rate? by whose standard? That is a subjective statement at best. There are a lot more people on theis earth than there used to be - that in and of itself requires increased consumption of resources.
Please - your argument is weak.
[quote]…we’ve almost reached a point were earth can’t maintain a natural status-quo between pollution and absorption of pollutants. If we continue to pollute and destroy earths ability to counter that pollution, it won’t be that long before we suffer the consequences…[/quote].
That’s utter enviro bullshit. Let me go back to my volcano example: The earth cleans itself all the time, regardless of who makes the mess. It always will.
You give humans way too much credit. But I do notice that you take the time to use valuable natural resources, using a plastic computer, wasting electricity, and propping up the evil battery industry that pollutes and destroys our earth in an effort to tell me I am wrong.
Maybe I will give a shit when all the save the earth freaks actuall practice what they preach. Or is it just enough for you to feel guilty about raping the land?
…perhaps it won’t be within your lifetime, but surely you agree that we need to pass on this planet in such a condition that ensures prolonged habitation?
[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Great post. To compare our use of resources, the destruction of the rainforests, the killing off of entire species of animals and plants that might actually hold cures to our own diseases…to volcanoe eruptions is a little misguided. Volcanoes are destructive, however, much like fire cleanses the area it touches and allows new life to breed they are nothing like LAND FILLS.
New life can come from destruction by fire eventually assuming there is eventual plant growth and the return of a viable ecosystem. There isn’t any new life coming directly from the cleansing power of an oil spill. [/quote]
Landfills are being reclaimed and used for housing, and parks, and golf courses. I’ve yet to see where they have reclaimed anything from Mt. St. Helens yet.
Now the original argument on this thread was about global warming. Specifically - about the myth of man’s responsibility for it.
You have swallowed vroom’s bait and switch ploy hook,line, and sinker.
You could do better than this if you just applied yourself.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Now you are changing the subject. Your first concern was the human ‘footprint’. Now it is the health and well being of living beings.
[/quote]
I am not changing the subject. I’ve been dealing with this issue in an expanded viewpoint for quite a while now. The fact that you came along late and now want to restrict the thread to the title is your problem.
Oh, the quantity is what counts? So, that fact that many substances cause cancer is immaterial to you? You don’t care if we wipe out this species or that species while we are here? Fine, that is your choice. However, we don’t all have to share the same viewpoint.
Oh man, you are the worst for this. You really have nothing to say and nothing to add, so instead you start crowing about a victory of some type. Just proclaiming yourself victorious only works for politcians, and we aren’t them. Nice game though, reminds me of grade 5.
It’s the same subject dummy. Look, if there is validity to global warming, and we are causing it, then we’ll be causing damage to ourselves. It will be economic damage, the same damage that people are up in arms about due to the thought of spending money to make sure we avoid global warming.
Did you follow that? Do I need to type slower? If the water temperature in the Gulf of Mexico goes up, the strength of hurricanes that travel over the warmer water goes up. Good news, right?
If the rainfall patterns across the USA change, so that you live in a big desert, that will cause hardshop and loss of money too. Good news, right?
If the oceans rise and you have to wall up your major cities, or slowly move them back from the coastline, that will cost a ton of money. Good news, right?
I’m not trying to prove global warming is a dangerous issue, I’m not claiming that I know it is, I’m just talking about the issues that we will face if it actually is a problem that we run into.
Pretending it can’t happen, that we can’t cause it, and that we can’t damage our own interests is just stupid. Why don’t you go drive into a brick wall after disabling your air bags and making sure you aren’t wearing a seatbelt?
Because it would be stupid. Why don’t you drink water that runs off the pavement at your nearby gas station? Because it would be stupid.
You know damned well that there are environmental issues that you have to be aware of, for the quality of your own life, or that there are risks that you would rather not take.
I already told you above. If you want to get metaphysical, of course the planet itself will always be fine and recover. However, it’s stupid to ignore our own interests in this area, just because the Earth can get along without us.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Landfills are being reclaimed and used for housing, and parks, and golf courses. I’ve yet to see where they have reclaimed anything from Mt. St. Helens yet.[/quote]
Why do you play these silly games? There is a timeframe involved with volcanoes. Your statement makes no sense. All the land we have “claimed” is reclaimed from geographic activities of the past, and you know it.
You don’t know it’s a myth. You want to believe it is a myth, because as I said earlier, we’ll all be better off if it is… or more realistically, our children and grandchildren will be better off if it is.
However, worrying about other people, or people in the future, is obviously beyond some.
[quote]You have swallowed vroom’s bait and switch ploy hook,line, and sinker.
You could do better than this if you just applied yourself.[/quote]
Stop playing such bullshit childish games. It’s tiring. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve been very willing to admit I’m not a scientist and can’t prove or disprove the global warming issue to anyones satisfaction.
My issue is that we should be prudent. The additional issues being discussed show how we are routinely willing to pollute the environment in ways that are harmful to us.
For example, from pesticides, there are xenoestrogents that stay in the ecosystem and have been show to have effects on the sex characteristics of crocodiles. I’m sure nobody cares how much damage is done to the crocodile ecosystem, but fish also undergo changes due to xenoestrogens. I guess fish don’t matter either. Sort of like mercury in tuna. Who cares!
I think we have two camps. Just realize that we are just another species on the planet dealing with the long term effects of our own actions too.
Camp 1) I don’t give a shit about the health after-effects of anything we do on the planet.
Camp 2) I care about maintaining the variety of life on the planet and that currently living species are able to live natural healthy lives.
I really expect these camps to cross political boundaries… unless political boundaries simply show people that are considerate and people that aren’t?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Landfills are being reclaimed and used for housing, and parks, and golf courses. I’ve yet to see where they have reclaimed anything from Mt. St. Helens yet. [/quote]
Are you being serious with this? You truly believe that we are decreasing the amount of space used for our own waste on this planet?
How is this a myth? Have you proven this to be a myth or that our actions will have no lasting effects on this planet or on the lives of humans even 500 years in the future? Vroom has nothing to do with my opinion on this issue, and to tell the truth, I haven’t even read every single post in this thread. Our time on this planet may very well be very limited. We could be wiped out next year by an asteroid for all we know. However, assuming we actually get the priviledge to occupy space on this rock for a few more thousand years, it makes no sense to believe that eventually, resources won’t one day run out, increased populations won’t lead to new strains of diseases, or that our presence here won’t be a positive for either our lives or the lives of other species. Eventually, one day in the distant future, there won’t be rain forests. Perhaps you simply don’t like oxygen.
Let’s stick with what is the truth, okay? The truth is that the Global warming which is going to melt the polar icecaps, cause a climate shift which ushers in a new ice age, depletes the ozone layer leading to disastrous consequences and exposure to harmful solar radiation and cosmic rays, and eventually give rise to gigantic monsters like Rodan and Godzilla…
– that extreme global warming is a 0.6 degree centigrade increase in temperature – as our good friend Mage pointed out. Which, I might like to add, is within measurement error, so that 0.6 degrees may not even exist. Please read this link:
Please do not be a sucker. Stick with the facts and discard what is funding-search-fueled junk science bullshit. As much as I love science, there are some “scientists” who care little for truth and care more about their own selfish greed. Among this group are the climate alarmists like Mann who concocted the famous “hockey stick” graph which started all this global warming crap to begin with.
Of course, the hockey stick has been thoroughly debunked, but you don’t hear about that in the news, do you? The headlines “Everything is Going to be Okay!” just don’t sell like “Possible Catastrophe brewing in the Antarctic!”
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
So we are killing the planet then?
Come on guys. Fearmongering gets you nowhere.
…
Don’t be a sucker.[/quote]
Talk about being a sucker. Nobody is fear mongering (in here anyway – perhaps out in the wider world it really is happening).
What I find funny is when politically motivated groups or people (out there, not in here) publish their own countering studies or have their studies cherry picked to support a stance.
The truth is probably somewhere between the extremes. We probably aren’t all doing to die tomorrow, and we probably aren’t completely safe from the after effects of ourselves over time.
Have you guys ever heard of Love Canal? It’s one of the more researched screwups we’ve made…
Alternately, have any of you watched the movie Erin Brockavich? It’s about chemicals released into the environment that got into the water supply and made people sick.
No, it’s not global warming, but they are examples of how we can make life miserable for ourselves with our waste products. I can’t believe people are so ignorant as to believe we can’t poison ourselves – or other animals on the planet.
Care or don’t. However, please don’t pretend our impact is minimal on a biological level. Admittedly, the Earth will keep spinning whether or not humans or other species are present, but that isn’t the issue.
As for global warming, my concern is that we operate as if we can do no wrong, whereas humans continually find ways to screw things up… only changing our actions after we’ve already caused a problem, but only if cause and effect can be “proven”.
If, and I keep saying if dammit, we are going to cause global warming, my bet is we do it large, and then after the fact finally work to get control of it. It’s the way humans are. We’re willing to to dump our garbage, of any type, anyware as long as it’s part of some money making process for somebody.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I am not changing the subject. I’ve been dealing with this issue in an expanded viewpoint for quite a while now. The fact that you came along late and now want to restrict the thread to the title is your problem.[/quote]
Dude - I’ve been here since the beginning of the thread. Your argument is misplaced and way to broad - as usual.
I asked how it was harming other humans. Quality or quantity, our “damage” to the earth is nonexistent when compared to the damage done to it by nature itself.
You are the one calling me names. Voice your viewpoint all you want. I have the same right to voice mine, and call bullshit on the junk science you and others on here seem to lap up like warm milk
I am the worst? Worst what?
There is validity to global warming. But absolutely no proof, or even a logical hypothesis that supports the idea that it is man’s fault.
It doesn’t matter how slow you write - your idiocy leaps off the page. There is nothing you can do to stop global warming. It’s not man’s fault. It is the course of nature. How much money can you spend to prevent a tornado, hurrican, or earthquake? I’d really like to know. How much? We can’t even prevent mudslides in Cali. Your logic is that of a raving moron.
That has happened on a continual basis since the dawn of man. man does not control the weather patterns. How much would it cost to change weather patterns?
How much money would we have to pay in to prevent rising ocean levels? How is that man’s fault? You are really going to stick with this stupidity? What am I saying? look who I am dealing with here.
The point that you are so painfully missing is that tnone of the things you mention are the fault, or under the control of man. If it happens, it happens. We cannot control, or even affect what the earth does.
[quote]Pretending it can’t happen, that we can’t cause it, and that we can’t damage our own interests is just stupid. Why don’t you go drive into a brick wall after disabling your air bags and making sure you aren’t wearing a seatbelt?[quote]
I never said it can’t happen. In fact I agree that the earth is warming. What is impossible is to blame man for it.
You missed the entire argument. Not that I’m suprised at all - but you really need to pay attention.
Now you are just going off the deep end. But like I said - I am not suprised.
But none of them are to blame for global warming.
Once again - not the argument. Nothing man can do will lead to global warming.
You are nothing more than a fear monger, and the definition of a myopic halfwit.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Dude - I’ve been here since the beginning of the thread. Your argument is misplaced and way to broad - as usual. [/quote]
Look, you may disagree with it, but there is a reason I am widening the topic. I’m pointing out the myopic nature of mankind, and past mistakes in related areas help do that.
You don’t like it or don’t agree with it, tough. At the same time you tell me you are allowed to voice your opinion, well, mine involves a wider topic area than you’d like. Tough.
Well, see, this is where we can start to disagree. Now, the fact that I have not claimed absolute proof, might just mean maybe you are huffing and puffing in the wrong direction?
I suppose you have proof for your viewpoint then? Both of us can point to studies that support our viewpoint, but I don’t imagine your proofs are any stronger than those that conclude the opposite of the sites you choose to listen to.
Are you really stupid enough to suggest that I’m arguing about trying to prevent a tornado, hurricane or other disaster? Quit with the smoke and mirrors, as what I’m talking about has absolutely nothing to do with what you are arguing about.
Strange how you always you do that.
Whether or not we control things, we do have the ability to influence the weather. Hell, perhaps you’ve heard of those expirements where they seed clouds to attempt to cause rainfall? Man plays with or influences nature all the time. Control is a word you are pulling out of your ass, because everyone knows it is futile to control mother nature.
You give me shit for discussing what are apparently issues that we are having an influence on, yet you somehow have the gall to suggest you KNOW that we CAN’T affect them in any way. Where the hell do you get this idea?
Individually, no, but collectively, we have a large impact on our environment and the biology that shares it with us. You can pretend we don’t, but we certainly can.
Look, the fact you want to shift the argument to one of CONTROL as opposed to one of INFLUENCE is not my fault. Maybe if you weren’t playing these games people wouldn’t be confused when you seem to coming from a different direction.
No, I’m showing examples that it is pretty hard for you to argue against, so you change the playing field and pretend they have no bearing. You are simply doing the same old thing, playing politics and trying to win a purile argument instead of discussing the issues involved.
Is that all you’ve got? I mean, do you ever plan to add something of value to an issue, a discussion… or is everything just a contest that you want to win.
If you have proof that we can’t INFLUENCE our environment, you just go ahead and trot it out for our enjoyment. I’m pretty confident most people accept the fact that we influence our environment all the time… acid rain and the loss of fish in many lakes comes to mind.
I suppose that is a myth too? Tell that to those in the fishing industry.
[quote]vroom wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
So we are killing the planet then?
Come on guys. Fearmongering gets you nowhere.
…
Don’t be a sucker.
Talk about being a sucker. Nobody is fear mongering (in here anyway – perhaps out in the wider world it really is happening).
What I find funny is when politically motivated groups or people (out there, not in here) publish their own countering studies or have their studies cherry picked to support a stance.
The truth is probably somewhere between the extremes. We probably aren’t all doing to die tomorrow, and we probably aren’t completely safe from the after effects of ourselves over time.
Have you guys ever heard of Love Canal? It’s one of the more researched screwups we’ve made…
Alternately, have any of you watched the movie Erin Brockavich? It’s about chemicals released into the environment that got into the water supply and made people sick.
No, it’s not global warming, but they are examples of how we can make life miserable for ourselves with our waste products. I can’t believe people are so ignorant as to believe we can’t poison ourselves – or other animals on the planet.
Care or don’t. However, please don’t pretend our impact is minimal on a biological level. Admittedly, the Earth will keep spinning whether or not humans or other species are present, but that isn’t the issue.
As for global warming, my concern is that we operate as if we can do no wrong, whereas humans continually find ways to screw things up… only changing our actions after we’ve already caused a problem, but only if cause and effect can be “proven”.
If, and I keep saying if dammit, we are going to cause global warming, my bet is we do it large, and then after the fact finally work to get control of it. It’s the way humans are. We’re willing to to dump our garbage, of any type, anyware as long as it’s part of some money making process for somebody.[/quote]
It does not take a rocket scientist to know that continuing to pollute the earth will have some consequence, even if that consequence is a lower quality of life for all of us. I for one don’t what to live on a trash heap. I want to see blue skies and not smog. I want to swim in the ocean and not have to get a penicillin shot afterwards because of the pollution.
Just wanting to live in a world that is worth living in should be motivation enough to deal with pollution in a responsible manner.