Is it realistic to believe we can save the planet with regulations?

[HumblePi]

After watching this video, several things occurred to me. First, how lucky I am to have been born in this country. Second, how unfortunate for millions of people who were born in third-world countries. Last, is there any hope at saving this planet, or has over population diminished that possibility?

You may never forget this video.

 

[ataraxia]

In answer to your question: yes. Law and order has defined human civilization and we are all better for it than when we were free in the jungle.

Second question: the problem in the last few decades is not OVER population- but shrinking populations all over the world.

Shrinking populations mean less growth and a more fractious world

Politicians must act now to avert the worst

www.economist.com

How declining population growth might portend a future of increasing resource scarcity

In the coming century, the global economy will experience an unprecedented convergence of two trends, as the world’s population reaches its peak while simultaneously approaching near-zero levels of growth – a combination that will invert both the population pyramid and dependency rates. This...

cepr.org

 

[tshade]

After watching this video, several things occurred to me. First, how lucky I am to have been born in this country. Second, how unfortunate for millions of people who were born in third-world countries. Last, is there any hope at saving this planet, or has over population diminished that possibility?

You may never forget this video.

We can help with regulations.

 

[eohrnberger]

"Is it realistic to believe we can save the planet with regulations?"

How realistic is this?

So, no, not at all.

This especially poignant in how the US federal government has been spending money been publicized as of late.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The answer is no and we should stop trying.

Why?

Glad you asked.

True story: I have a friend who was a pack a day smoker his whole life. Every time one of us tried to get him to quit, he would gloat about his health and that the smoking had not damaged him. He now has cancer. And yes, that is a true story and it breaks my heart.

Does anyone here get the analogy though?

Furthermore: We don't have it in us to save ourselves from ourselves. So maybe the worst that anyone can imagine will need to happen in order to finally realize - like my friend - the consequences. Except - like my friend - by the time we do it will be too late.

AND YES to all of you frothing anti-climate change believers, I DO REALIZE it might not happen in your lifetime, so you can gloat and deny and deflect all you want. But I have kids. Nuff said?

 

[Lycanthrope]

Furthermore: We don't have it in us to save ourselves from ourselves. So maybe the worst that anyone can imagine will need to happen in order to finally realize - like my friend - the consequences. Except - like my friend - by the time we do it will be too late.

I hate to even flirt with nihilism on this but I am inclined to agree. Our species seems incapable of anything other than conflict and short sighted greed. Whether through resource depletion or war or superbugs, the best thing for the earth itself may well be human extinction. By some estimates the earth is over 4.5 billion years old; we are a mere blink in its long memory, and it will recover after we're gone.

 

[OrphanSlug]

"Is it realistic to believe we can save the planet with regulations?" ... is a horribly naive question.

We can burn all the fossil fuels we can find, dump all the waste we want into waterways, and pollute everything in every way imaginable... and the planet will still be here, we will not.

Same story, we can deploy every nuke on the planet and kill off every living thing in a haze of stupidity and lunacy... and the planet will still be here, we will not.

Truth be told, and dispensing with the traditional religious dogma, Earth has started over several times already after just about all "life" on it was taken for some reason, event, or otherwise.

Why do we regulate at all? And it is because of public interest, despite the best argument from what is left of rugged individualism and libertarianism we all share this planet. We know we impact it thus we impact one another. The condition of the planet for us to continue to live on is one of many reasons we deploy regulation. Never was an end all be all for all problems, in this case it is a method to address what we do to our planet thus do to our ability to live on it.

Not for the sake of the planet, it will carry on, it is for our sake.

The implication of the question means changing the OP's idiocy to "Should we continue to regulate so we can exist on this planet?" The answer is clearly yes. Even if it does not solve every problem we have from climate change, to population levels, to nations and ideologies that cannot get along, to dealing with famine or disease, the list goes on and on.

The real question, the ultimate question, is are we going to continue to evolve and grow up or, die off one way or another because we were too stupid to realize what we've done?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

and it will recover after we're gone.

With a lot less life on it, because animals will suffer as well.

 

[Lycanthrope]

The implication of the question means changing the OP's idiocy to "Should we continue to regulate so we can exist on this planet?" The answer is clearly yes. Even if it does not solve every problem we have from climate change, to population levels, to nations and ideologies that cannot get along, to dealing with famine or disease, the list goes on and on.

And this pulls me back from a nihilist position a bit. Reminds me of the fate of the Norse gods at Ragnarok - they know going in the battle is lost before it starts, but they go out to fight nonetheless.

 

[Gozaburo]

I hate to even flirt with nihilism on this but I am inclined to agree. Our species seems incapable of anything other than conflict and short sighted greed. Whether through resource depletion or war or superbugs, the best thing for the earth itself may well be human extinction. By some estimates the earth is over 4.5 billion years old; we are a mere blink in its long memory, and it will recover after we're gone.

I've always thought this is such a bizarre and juvenile take on morality. Like what are you even saying here? Bad and evil exists so nothing should exist at all? That's like an infinitely more evil position than the catalyst which motivated your conclusion in the first place.

Nietzsche remains 100% vindicated when he said the proliferation of secularism would leave humanity with a fundamentally shallow worldview. One of the most valuable lessons which emerged from theism is that the default state is suffering and hardship. It is the desire to pursue goodness which distinguishes man from all other known life, even if we still have our shortcomings. We have infinite knowledge at our fingertips and yet some peasant in a mudhut had a more sober take on morality than the modern primitive does, who spends his time thinking we should either live in a Candyland funhouse theme park or not live at all.

 

[Lycanthrope]

With a lot less life on it, because animals will suffer as well.

Millions of years after humanity is gone, life will have adapted. At least that's what I would hope. The sun is expected to turn into a white dwarf in 4 billion years or so; plenty of time for the earth to reset.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

It is the desire to pursue goodness which distinguishes man from all other known life

And here I thought it was the attempt to sound more aware and educated and philosophical than other lowly human beings that distinguishes man from other known life

I've always thought this is such a bizarre and juvenile take on morality.

Well there you have it folks A perfect example of superior morality.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I've always thought this is such a bizarre and juvenile take on morality. Like what are even saying here? Bad and evil exists so nothing should exist at all? That's like an infinitely more evil position than the catalyst which motivated your conclusion in the first place.

Nietzsche remains 100% vindicated when he said the proliferation of secularism would leave humanity with a fundamentally shallow worldview. One of the most valuable lessons which emerged from theism is that the default state is suffering and hardship. It is the desire to pursue goodness which distinguishes man from all other known life, even if we still have our shortcomings. We have infinite knowledge at our fingertips and yet some peasant in a mudhut had a more sober take on morality than the modern primitive does, who spends his time thinking we should either live in a Candyland funhouse theme park or not live at all.

Like I said - I hate to flirt with it. Humanity has knowledge, yes; but history is rife with our species' stupidity and tendency towards self-destruction.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Like I said - I hate to flirt with it. Humanity has knowledge, yes; but history is rife with our species' stupidity and tendency towards self-destruction.

BUT your take on morality is "juvenile" so you must bow to his superior intellect

 

[BirdinHand]

"Is it realistic to believe we can save the planet with regulations?" ... is a horribly naive question.

We can burn all the fossil fuels we can find, dump all the waste we want into waterways, and pollute everything in every way imaginable... and the planet will still be here, we will not.

Same story, we can deploy every nuke on the planet and kill off every living thing in a haze of stupidity and lunacy... and the planet will still be here, we will not.

Truth be told, and dispensing with the traditional religious dogma, Earth has started over several times already after just about all "life" on it was taken for some reason, event, or otherwise.

Why do we regulate at all? And it is because of public interest, despite the best argument from what is left of rugged individualism and libertarianism we all share this planet. We know we impact it thus we impact one another. The condition of the planet for us to continue to live on is one of many reasons we deploy regulation. Never was an end all be all for all problems, in this case it is a method to address what we do to our planet thus do to our ability to live on it.

Not for the sake of the planet, it will carry on, it is for our sake.

The implication of the question means changing the OP's idiocy to "Should we continue to regulate so we can exist on this planet?" The answer is clearly yes. Even if it does not solve every problem we have from climate change, to population levels, to nations and ideologies that cannot get along, to dealing with famine or disease, the list goes on and on.

The real question, the ultimate question, is are we going to continue to evolve and grow up or, die off one way or another because we were too stupid to realize what we've done?

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[OrphanSlug]

And this pulls me back from a nihilist position a bit. Reminds me of the fate of the Norse gods at Ragnarok - they know going in the battle is lost before it starts, but they go out to fight nonetheless.

I do not consider nihilism much other than a buzz word to explain an unworkable condition.

Further, I do not consider the battle lost just yet.

 

[Gozaburo]

And here I thought it was the attempt to sound more aware and educated and philosophical than other lowly human beings that distinguishes man from other known life

Well there you have it folks A perfect example of superior morality.

Sorry I will never disagree with anyone or have a take contrary to the current zeitgeist ever again.

 

[stealthycat]

the USA certainly can't save the planet - there are several large countries that are ultra-polluters

it would take literally every country in the world to get on board and it won't happen

 

[Lycanthrope]

Further, I do not consider the battle lost just yet.

I envy your optimism, and I mean that sincerely.

 

[StillBallin75]

Better than doing ****ing nothing, but "saving the planet" will probably involve a whole restructure of the existing social and economic order that probably just won't happen.

And for what it's worth, the planet will still be here after we've destroyed it. It's humans who will suffer - and usually the most vulnerable populations that will suffer the most.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Yes.

However, we are at a point where sacrifice is needed and that is the problem.

 

[MauiMan]

I hate to even flirt with nihilism on this but I am inclined to agree. Our species seems incapable of anything other than conflict and short sighted greed. Whether through resource depletion or war or superbugs, the best thing for the earth itself may well be human extinction. By some estimates the earth is over 4.5 billion years old; we are a mere blink in its long memory, and it will recover after we're gone.

What?! You're seriously buying into the whole humans are just a cosmic mistake routine? Sure, we've got flaws conflict and greed aren't exactly rare but saying we're incapable of anything else is total nonsense. What about art, science, or even random acts of kindness? You're cherry-picking the worst of us and ignoring the rest. And this earth will recover bit? Yeah, it's old as dirt literally but that doesn't mean it's better off without us. Who says the planet's some pristine saint that can't handle a little chaos? Maybe we're part of its story, not just a zit to pop. What's your proof we're the best thing to get rid of, anyway?

 

[Lycanthrope]

What?! You're seriously buying into the whole humans are just a cosmic mistake routine?

Not at all. Humans aren't a mistake, nor are they part of some grand cosmic narrative. They are just one among a group of successful species at this brief moment in the earth's 4.5 billion year history.

What I am saying is as a species humans seem hellbent on self-destruction. It's not about "humanity is the worst," it's about "humanity is incapable of acting in its best self interest." If we manage to stupid ourselves into extinction, however, the earth will reset and life will carry on.

 

[uptower]

We can save the planet with ACTION.

Regulations force people to take action. They don't just exist for their own sake.

 

[Manc Skipper]

"Is it realistic to believe we can save the planet with regulations?"

How realistic is this?

So, no, not at all.

This especially poignant in how the US federal government has been spending money been publicized as of late.

You are a victim then. YOU believe the misrepresentation in the cartoon. It worked for the ozone layer,