View Poll Results: Which of these two statements "more" aptly characterizes the impetus for environmenta

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • We need to control population (future generations) to preserve the Earth's resources.

    2 20.00%
  • We need to preserve the Earth's resources for future generations.

    8 80.00%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 81
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    ...depleting resources...
    There is no "depleting resources". It is just a weird bogyman. Conservation of mass and energy, we all heard that.

    Man has a way of adapting and finding new ways to survive and flourish as do all species.

    I read on the internet (unfortunately, not saved the reference, but maybe some IEEE stuff), that the first radio transmission probably used the entire electromagnetic spectrum. But today, less than 100 years later, we have each person communicating without interference using the same spectrum. That's progress... What I mean to point out is mankind's ability to "exploit" (not a bad word) resources. AND "thinking" about resources is mainly a matter of perspective.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    This article explores some more on our perceptions and biases, especially when it comes to security and risks.

    http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.pdf
    Excellent subject matter. But the article proves that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The author lists a lot of good information, but he doesn't understand what he writes about.

    On the issue of terrorism, his judgement rests on the fallacy that you can always assess the probability of future events by looking solely at the past. That works fine for static, repeating scenarios, but it's mostly useless otherwise. What's the probability that terrorists will detonate a nuclear bomb, killing 2 million people? To the extent of his understanding, the probability is zero, because only 2,973 people were killed on 9/11 in one "non-repeating incident."

    On a more techical note, he misapplies the concept of "expected utility" and the broader utility theory. I stopped reading after page 9 because it became too annoying.
    Last edited by samkim; 03/12/2007 at 12:45 AM.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I consider it more from self preservation. If we f**c up our environment, depleting resources that took eons to form, that can't be good for our future as a species.
    I think you're referring to oil and gas. I'm not so sure that they're really "fossil fuels" or that they're really limited resources.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I think you're referring to oil and gas. I'm not so sure that they're really "fossil fuels" or that they're really limited resources.
    Not to make light of a serious topic, but if oil were fossil fuel, we wouldn't have any if the cockroaches hadn't killed-off the dinosaurs.
  5. #25  
    It's so sad to hear You guys justifying such dysfunctional ideas . I suppose most of you are Young and that you had a poor introduction to your world . You think that a strong argument is more important than true intelligence ? An intelligent person would not discount a member of there family , of there community , or any part of this magnificent eco system .He/She would know that everything maters from the microbe to the galaxies and that they are all apart of what and who we are . I'm so grateful to be awake . To know that I'm no greater than a cockroach and no less than a galaxy , and that I would never settle for any thing less than full citizenship in this wonderful thing called life . Our life's are so fragile . To be alive on this planet makes us all winners of the greatest lottery . Wake Up ! Be a part of it All !
  6. #26  
    Sigh... Protecting the environment is not something done for idealistic reasons, but in order to protect what we need to live from. It means not taking massive mid- and long-term disadvantages for short-term conveniences. It is as simple as that. The only problem is that some people are too short-sighted, too ignorant, or too desperate to act reasonably.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Just like every other species, human population rises and falls with it's environment's ability to support it.
    No, the population rises and falls with the ability of the population to make use of the environment. If that use of the environment is not sustainable, conditions will worsen, life gets tougher and the population will go down.
    If you like, healthcare, technology, etc. are just particularly human methods of adaptation. Still, they are not necessarily better at adapting than, say, bacteria or viruses.
    Technological development has nothing to do with the adaptation of species (which is on the genetic level).
    Just like other species, where we thrive, other species die out.
    That's not a given in any way or for any species. "Thrive" does not mean "destroy".
    Yet, we insist on trying to manipulate the populations of other species well beyond their utility to us. Isn't that the way that we are different than other species? Isn't trying to protect certain species--to the detriment of our own--really the unnatural and, by defenition, harmful thing to do? Not only to humans but to the planet?
    If protecting certain species really would be to the detriment of our own, it would be a stupid thing to do. Only nobody really does that. Nobody tries to protect species which are harmful to us, such as pathogens. Only very rarely there are conflicts of interests, e.g. regarding tigers. But e.g. the Japanese population will not go down because whales are protected, but why should we allow whales to go extinct just because a few people want to eat whale meat for another 10 years (and then it will be gone forever).
    Aren't we altering the natural cycle of evolution and extinction that's occured on this planet for many millions of years by actually trying to curb our own population to support others?
    We don't do that, we just try not to destroy what we are living from. Again, it means not taking massive mid- and long-term disadvantages for short-term conveniences.

    Take the US as an example: Most houses have terrible insulation, because you want them cheap (short term convenience). Therefore, you need massive cooling in summer and massive heating in winter, leading to massive waste of energy, and massive mid- and long-term worldwide problems due to global warming. Why can't you build houses the way we do, and reduce your energy consumption by half to our level?
    Last edited by clulup; 03/12/2007 at 05:04 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    It's so sad to hear You guys justifying such dysfunctional ideas . I suppose most of you are Young and that you had a poor introduction to your world . You think that a strong argument is more important than true intelligence ? An intelligent person would not discount a member of there family , of there community , or any part of this magnificent eco system .He/She would know that everything maters from the microbe to the galaxies and that they are all apart of what and who we are . I'm so grateful to be awake . To know that I'm no greater than a cockroach and no less than a galaxy , and that I would never settle for any thing less than full citizenship in this wonderful thing called life . Our life's are so fragile . To be alive on this planet makes us all winners of the greatest lottery . Wake Up ! Be a part of it All !
    Taking drugs so early in the morning isn't really very good.

    Surur
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Take the US as an example: Most houses have terrible insulation, because you want them cheap (short term convenience). Therefore, you need massive cooling in summer and massive heating in winter, leading to massive waste of energy, and massive mid- and long-term worldwide problems due to global warming. Why can't you build houses the way we do, and reduce your energy consumption by half to our level?
    *Sigh.* Our temperatures aren't as moderate as yours:
    http://www.weather.com/outlook/trave...33?from=search

    In New York, our summer highs are much hotter, and our winter lows are a little colder:
    http://www.weather.com/outlook/trave...96?from=search

    I'm sure utility bills in Hawaii are MUCH lower than yours. Why can't you be as efficient as them?
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    The trouble is, we cannot oftentimes predict the long term effects of altering the environment. Look at global warming, that was not appreciated years ago. Look at China, who has been going full bore at development at the expense of the environment and now is suffering major consequences in water pollution, deforestation and air pollution. Its what we could be if we let mining, timber and energy companies etc operate without any controls. Its insane to think that this is a good thing. Destruction of our country's natural resources is self defeating and short sighted and we cannot just let the private sector do what is best.
    You're right; we can't predict the long term effects of altering the environment. That's why I put forward my question. When we try to repopulate this or that species, either because its endangered or because we need it as a resource, we're altering the environment just like many other species who've altered their own environment. My theory, I guess to put it in a nutshell, is that there's no "balance of nature" that we're throwing out of balance because we are part of that nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    No decendents? If we simply averaged two children for each family we would still have a slightly negative population growth. Thats pretty much the case in many european countries today.
    I didn't say "no descendents". But the case of the European countries is a good example of what I was talking about before. By altering the number of chiuldren they're having, they're not simply reducing the population of the world to a sustainable level, they're reducing the population of their own cultures and those cultures are being replaced by other cultures.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Sigh... Protecting the environment is not something done for idealistic reasons, but in order to protect what we need to live from. It means not taking massive mid- and long-term disadvantages for short-term conveniences. It is as simple as that. The only problem is that some people are too short-sighted, too ignorant, or too desperate to act reasonably.
    You mean "too human"? Actually, many, many people do think of protecting the environment for idealistic reasons. A whole fringe of the environmentalist movement thinks of humans as nothing more than parasites in this world (see Mr. Church).

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    No, the population rises and falls with the ability of the population to make use of the environment. If that use of the environment is not sustainable, conditions will worsen, life gets tougher and the population will go down.
    You said basically the same thing I said only from a different angle.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Technological development has nothing to do with the adaptation of species (which is on the genetic level).
    I was referring primarily to behavioral adaptation.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    That's not a given in any way or for any species. "Thrive" does not mean "destroy".
    I didn't say destroy. I said "die out" in areas where humans thrive.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    If protecting certain species really would be to the detriment of our own, it would be a stupid thing to do. Only nobody really does that. Nobody tries to protect species which are harmful to us, such as pathogens. Only very rarely there are conflicts of interests, e.g. regarding tigers. But e.g. the Japanese population will not go down because whales are protected, but why should we allow whales to go extinct just because a few people want to eat whale meat for another 10 years (and then it will be gone forever).
    This sort of contradicts what you said earlier about humans only trying to protect what they need to live from. But I do think you need to familiarize yourself with the elements of the environmentalist movement who want to limit human population to 500 million.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Take the US as an example: Most houses have terrible insulation, because you want them cheap (short term convenience). Therefore, you need massive cooling in summer and massive heating in winter, leading to massive waste of energy, and massive mid- and long-term worldwide problems due to global warming. Why can't you build houses the way we do, and reduce your energy consumption by half to our level?
    You're going to have to provide some facts here because I don't buy that.
  11. #31  
    The problem with just preserving for utility is that at some point we won't need nature anymore, and then what? Pave the lot over? We can't always depend on our ignorace to protect the environment, a little sentiment is not misplaced at all.

    Surur
  12. #32  
    I don't see what all the argument is about.. regardless of how anti-environmentalist/conservative/right-wing one may be.

    1. Some things are liked by a lot of humans, like teak wood furniture, leopard skin coats, ivory pianos.

    2. We make as many of these as we possibly can, as fast as we can.

    3. It takes waaay longer for a teak tree to grow, the leopard to have offsprings, the elephants to grow tusks than it takes to chop down/kill one.

    4. In a few short years, all teak forests are gone (replaced by eucalyptus plantations, maybe), leopard and the elephants are extinct.

    5. Mankind loses out on the furniture, coats and piano keys.

    How can this be good for mankind? If the choice was to preserve (so that future generation did not learn about these from just pictures) or use up in a sustainable manner, or to pay no attention to such "environmentalist elite main stream media leftist" approach ... which one would you pick?

    (I am assuming that I am not addressing this to forest poachers ....
    Last edited by aprasad; 03/12/2007 at 09:14 PM.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  13. #33  
    If you want to farm natural products there are more efficient ways than preserving a slice of the rain forest.

    Surur
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    let me posit this theory: Humans have a place on this planet just like any other species, right? And, just like any other species, humans have either migrated or adapted to their environment in order to survive.
    I'd like to argue the survival thing, if I may.
    Killing elephants for their tusks might save a few jobs (of poachers), but the humane race will survive regardless. The elephants, however, will not survive.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Aren't we altering the natural cycle of evolution and extinction that's occured on this planet for many millions of years by actually trying to curb our own population to support others?
    It isn't "us" against "them" deal.
    If there's a need to curb human population it is to protect the human race. If there's a need to protect species from becoming goners it is to protect them.
    We all need each other.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I don't see what all the argument is about.. regardless of how anti-environmentalist/conservative/right-wing one may be.

    1. Some things are liked by a lot of humans, like teak wood furniture, leoprd skin coats, ivory pianos.

    2. We make as many of these as we possibly can, as fast as we can.

    3. It takes waaay longer for a teak tree to grow, the leopard to have offsprings, the elephants to grow tusks

    4. In a few short years, all teak forests are gone (replaced by eucalyptus plantations, maybe), leopard and the elephants are extinct.

    5. Mankind loses out on the furniture, coats and piano keys.

    How can this be good for mankind? If the choice was to preserve (so that future generation did not learn about these from just pictures) or use up in a sustainable manner, or to pay no attention to such "environmentalist elite main stream media leftist" approach ... which one would you pick?

    (I am assuming that I am not addressing this to forest poachers ....
    Bad examples, IMO. I think humanity can do fine without teak wood, fur coats, and ivory piano keys. (Plastic keys are whiter, and can be weighted to feel just as good as ivory.)


    There seem to be several distinct motivations presented here for environmentalism: Sentimentality for nature, protection of selected animals and plants, preservation of lifestyle, prevention of crisis conditions, and survival of mankind. Surur values nature. Teak furniture falls under lifestyle. The OP seems focused on crisis conditions. I personally don't think our survival is at stake.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    If you want to farm natural products there are more efficient ways than preserving a slice of the rain forest.

    Surur
    What's a rain forest? You mean jungle?
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Bad examples, IMO. I think humanity can do fine without teak wood, fur coats, and ivory piano keys. (Plastic keys are whiter, and can be weighted to feel just as good as ivory.)


    There seem to be several distinct motivations presented here for environmentalism: Sentimentality for nature, protection of selected animals and plants, preservation of lifestyle, prevention of crisis conditions, and survival of mankind. Surur values nature. Teak furniture falls under lifestyle. The OP seems focused on crisis conditions. I personally don't think our survival is at stake.
    OK. Even if you limit this discussion to survival (instead of quality of life), don't you think that if we so desired, we could clear-cut the tropical forests faster than then new trees there would replace themselves?

    We don't have to.. but we could. How will that affect our source of oxygen?

    Unless you think that oil and coal supplies are unlimited (in the literal sense!), aren't we using them up faster than they are being produced (IF new coal and petroleum deposits are being produced at all, which I doubt)? I said produced, not discovered.

    Unless we discover/invent some entirely new source of energy (sustainable fusion reaction?) from common sources, what will our energy source be a few hundred years from now?

    The known supply of fossil fuels and fissionable material is limited. Given our understanding of how these fossil fuels were formed (originating in ancient plants and animals), I don't believe that their supply is infinite.

    Bottom line: Unless we use these resources in a planned manner, treating them as being limited in supply (a very environmentalist approach), how do you suppose we'll pass them on (indefinitely) to future generations?

    Should we use faith-based approach: We don't know how.. trust me we'll find more. We are not sure if/how the climate changes because of this. Trust us, we'll find a way to cope with it. Besides, in the long run, nothing matters. Earth was without humans for most of it's history. It will do fine without us. Some asteroid will come along and clean our clocks anyways. What's the point in planning for future when, in the long run, we are all dead anyway?
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Unless we discover/invent some entirely new source of energy (sustainable fusion reaction?) from common sources, what will our energy source be a few hundred years from now?

    The known supply of fossil fuels and fissionable material is limited. Given our understanding of how these fossil fuels were formed (originating in ancient plants and animals), I don't believe that their supply is infinite.

    Bottom line: Unless we use these resources in a planned manner, treating them as being limited in supply (a very environmentalist approach), how do you suppose we'll pass them on (indefinitely) to future generations?
    The sun is going to be shining for a few 100 million years from now. Ultimately all our energy comes from the sun, and there is no reason why we cant harness this directly. You can already go off-grid if you are willing to spend enough money. If the cost of other energy sources go up due to scarcity solar energy is the obvious answer - what else are you going to do - switch your TV off? The cost of the Iraq war could have taken 1 in 20 families in USA of the grid completely. With the price of solar energy going down while the cost of fossil fuel go up this will only become a cheaper and easier option.

    As fossil fuels are inherently limited, you can make a better argument that you should use your current resources to bootstrap future generations into a less limited source, instead of rationing it slowly, thereby inhibiting future progress.

    Surur
  19. #39  
    I don't believe our survival is at stake when it comes to energy supplies.

    At worst, it's an economic issue. If existing sources of oil and gas run low, prices go up, making it economically feasible to invest in other sources, such as Canadian oil sands, which will give us another century or so. If we need to switch from that, there are renewable sources, like corn and sugar. If we go there, then the cost of corn, pork, chicken, soft drinks, et.al. will shoot up... Then there are nuclear and solar, which will both be plentiful for eons at a cost. Basically, as costs rise, more and more money will be invested in new energy technology. But we won't run out of energy.

    As for our supply of oil and gas, we don't know what the limits are. It's certainly possible that there's enough to last longer than mankind. We still don't know for sure how it is created. A theory was developed a long time ago that it came from dead vegetation from millions of years ago, and that's become common wisdom, but it's far from proven.


    Your general point about not using resources faster than they're created is based on sound reasoning. Sure, it makes sense to control our consumption of something if we know for sure that we'll exhaust the supply otherwise. That may apply to things like certain seafood, but energy is another matter.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by [COLOR="Magenta"
    surur[/COLOR];1217652]Taking drugs so early in the morning isn't really very good.

    Surur
    Depends on the drugs , the morning , and the person taking them .
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions