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 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81
  1. #41  
    So what was it? The wrong drug, the wrong morning, or the wrong person?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    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.
    That's basically true, but misleading anyway. The main problem with using fossil fuels is not that resources are limited, but that the waste disposal (CO2 added to the atmosphere) increases the greenhouse effect and thus heats up the atmosphere, causes oceans to rise, stronger storms, creation of more deserts, etc.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #43  
    I have not had a chance to research the claim or the source, but I heard on Sat Radio while driving yesterday that there was a new report out that states that the average temp rose over a few centuries and climaxed in the 1600s, and those temps were higher than it is today. Then it cooled down again. I think the they said the article was in the Washington Post or the NY Times or something like that.

    I am slammed at work, but I am interested in this. If true I wonder what the global effects were then (i.e. oceans to rise, stronger storms, creation of more deserts, etc.)? What caused the increase in temp? What caused the cooling down again? What effects took place during the cooling period?

    I have no doubt that humans do have an effect on the climate of the earth (cutting down the main oxygen supply, pollution in the air, etc...), but I am also very interested the natural cycles of the earth. I always hear about the climate of the last 10,000 years, but isn't the Earth quite a bit older than that? Wouldn't that be like a doctor comparing and acting on your medical history for only the last 2 months and ignoring the rest of your life before that?

    I think there is a LOT we need to do before we can claim we are acting responsibly with our planet, it's resources, and it's conservation and preservation. I think we need to be proactive in implementing these steps now. I believe that man can wipe out the balance of the earth's natural climate cycles.....but I am not sure that we even know that those climate cycles actually are for sure, as the theories about it seem to change every decade or so (or even report by report for that matter).

    Heck in fact the reason for insects becoming several feet long and wide in the past was a long time period of a different composition in the atmosphere and higher temps to support them. The earth changed, and they became extinct or adapted to their current size. The reasons theorized for the flourishing and extinction of several plants is often times largely due to the flux of the temps and atmosphere composition in the long history of the earth. You can look at ranges in a small geo area with changes ranging from tropics to ice age(s). And recent studies have shown that some of these drastic swings in climate changes did happen on occasion in a matter of decades, and not always in centuries or millions of years (which did happen as well), but they don't know why or how it took place so quick yet.

    I think if we could actually come to understand these issues with earth's past, then we could know for sure what can do to not only help prevent a repeat of some of the climate changes by aiding the earth in these changes that might not have happened without our help, but we might be able to take proactive steps to actually help stop a natural cycle change, be it a change with higher temps or another ice age.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/14/2007 at 09:15 AM.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    That's basically true, but misleading anyway. The main problem with using fossil fuels is not that resources are limited, but that the waste disposal (CO2 added to the atmosphere) increases the greenhouse effect and thus heats up the atmosphere, causes oceans to rise, stronger storms, creation of more deserts, etc.
    This thread is about the preservation of resources. Or was.
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    ...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?
    I think this commentary was offered with tongue planted firmly in cheek. However, the underlying questions are legitimate.

    When I raised this question, I had read a commentary that compared these two motivations, and I thought our TC Think Tank would have interesting views to add. As I've read the views, they range from self-preservation to stewardship, with science, economics and politics mixed in.

    What is the rationale for any earnest interst in self-preservation, in light of the fact that, apparently, the earth was fine before humans and will be fine after we disappear? et

    On the other end, what is the basis for assuming responsibility for the "proper" use of the resources?

    The only argument I "get" is the logic that, based on what we know today, moderate use is in the long term interest of humanity's continued existence. I just don't "get" why humanity's long term existence is viewed as a worthwhile aim.
  6. #46  
    Hobbes: The reason why we care about the last 10 000 years is because we would like things to continue in the we we have physically, culturally and economically adapted to dealing with them. If things return to the way they were (say) 120 million years ago then it would hardly suite humans who have only been around a 100 000's of years.

    Surur
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I have not had a chance to research the claim or the source, but I heard on Sat Radio while driving yesterday that there was a new report out that states that the average temp rose over a few centuries and climaxed in the 1600s, and those temps were higher than it is today. Then it cooled down again. I think the they said the article was in the Washington Post or the NY Times or something like that.
    Took me a while to remember where I saw this...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/sc...erland&emc=rss

    The NYT article is about mainsream scientists who are critical of Gore's hype. Gore had claimed that we're experiencing the highest temperatures in the last thousand years, but according to a report last year, it's only the highest in the last 400 years.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Hobbes: The reason why we care about the last 10 000 years is because we would like things to continue in the we we have physically, culturally and economically adapted to dealing with them. If things return to the way they were (say) 120 million years ago then it would hardly suite humans who have only been around a 100 000's of years.

    Surur
    I agree we want it to remain the same as the last 10,000 years....but the fact is that massive climate changes has happened before, several times over (including within the last 10,000 year micro-snapshot). This makes it relevant when posing the questions of the cause of simillar effects now, what we can do to help, what we can to to help it proceed in the wrong direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    What is the rationale for any earnest interst in self-preservation, in light of the fact that, apparently, the earth was fine before humans and will be fine after we disappear? et
    Mother Nature has a way of bouncing back no matter what is thrown at her.....I really think that the bottom line motivation is based on the the question of what the effects will have on humanity rather than how it is often times stated as focusing on the long term effects of the earth.
  9. #49  
    Same reason as when/why people refer to "the good ole days".
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    What is the rationale for any earnest interst in self-preservation, in light of the fact that, apparently, the earth was fine before humans and will be fine after we disappear?
    Self preservation is a rationale in itself. Our DNA'a like to propagate themselves. One can take that as an observational premise.. it is just that way, and we (our amygdala?) are programmed to be that way.

    Earth may do just fine without humans, but I'd prefer that it do that WITH humans. I don't want another "Rise of the Reptiles" except in sci-fi movies :-)
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    What is the rationale for any earnest interst in self-preservation, in light of the fact that, apparently, the earth was fine before humans and will be fine after we disappear?
    Whith all due respect, but that is not a good question to ask. Or are you indeed insinuating your "earnest interest in self-preservation" depends on whether or not earth was (or will be) fine without humans?

    My interest in self-preservation (and the preservation of my children) is fine with or without that. Up to you if you have doubts.

    Besides "earth was/will be fine" is a strange thing to say, too. Earth has no feelings or thoughts, it just is.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I have no doubt that humans do have an effect on the climate of the earth (cutting down the main oxygen supply,
    What are you talking about? Are you one of those who think forests produce oxygen?
    I always hear about the climate of the last 10,000 years, but isn't the Earth quite a bit older than that?
    FAR too many of your compatriots think not.
    Wouldn't that be like a doctor comparing and acting on your medical history for only the last 2 months and ignoring the rest of your life before that?
    You behave as if you were the first person to think about such things. In fact, serious real life scientists have gone through them for decades now. But of course you are free to continue to pretend nobody has asked these questions and that there is no consensus (see http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Mother Nature has a way of bouncing back no matter what is thrown at her.....
    No true. A species gone extinct is gone forever. There are many more examples. If you are trying to say "humans will not be able to totally destroy all life on earth - fair enough, humans would be gone before that happens.
    I really think that the bottom line motivation is based on the the question of what the effects will have on humanity rather than how it is often times stated as focusing on the long term effects of the earth.
    I don't know anybody who worries about "long term effects on the earth". What would that be anyway?

    Serious people worry about what we (and our children) need to lead a happy life, now and in the foreseeable future. Cities along the coast not being flooded, harvests not being lost due to draughts etc. are among that. Huge cars some people need for their weak egos are not. Face it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #54  
    In the BIG picture it probably maters very little if we continue as a species or if Earth continues as a living planet . Our opinions and contributions probably wont be known outside this galaxy to long after we're gone . To me being conscious , creative , in love and in harmony with my environment is more just the best life style option I've found ... for now ,,,,,
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Mother Nature has a way of bouncing back no matter what is thrown at her.....I really think that the bottom line motivation is based on the the question of what the effects will have on humanity rather than how it is often times stated as focusing on the long term effects of the earth.
    “Bouncing back” to what? Surly you are not suggesting that mother nature is able to “bounce back” to its original state, right?
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    ...FAR too many of your compatriots think not.
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    No true. A species gone extinct is gone forever. ...
    Hmmmmm.

    Doesn't evolutionary theory allow for the re-emergence of a particular DNA framework?

    Or, couldn't another strand of the ape family evolve to meet the specifications of "human"?
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    “Bouncing back” to what? Surly you are not suggesting that mother nature is able to “bounce back” to its original state, right?
    That was part of my original point. What is its "original state"? The earth itself is constantly moving, shifting, slowly creating new landscape. Life, we are told, is constantly evolving and adapting. This earth surely isn't what it looked like 4 billion years ago. Surely, it's changed much more drastically in the billions of years before man existed than it has since.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    In the BIG picture it probably maters very little if we continue as a species or if Earth continues as a living planet .
    It will probably matter to us.

    Surur
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Hmmmmm.

    Doesn't evolutionary theory allow for the re-emergence of a particular DNA framework?

    Or, couldn't another strand of the ape family evolve to meet the specifications of "human"?
    Interestingly, say mankind went extinct in the next 100 years, if another ape evolve into a strongly technologically capable being in 100 000 years, they will find a very different world from what we had. Most of the easily accessible fossil fuel will be used up. Most of the easily accessible uranium will be used up. Iron deposits will be distributed in rubbish dumps, not ore. There would be a strange gap in the fossil record, with millions of the species suddenly disappearing.

    Surur
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions