• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Whats more important?

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Human beings are adaptable creatures but extremely selfish. We would destroy beautiful things for our own conveniance. It is my opinion that protecting beautiful things is more important then money or petty inconveniences. I know I'm gonna be alone in this but I dearly regret that we have sacrificed all this land and built these things all over it. Perhaps it was unavoidable but its a shame.

What do you think about this? How much should we exploit the enviroment for our benefit?
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
FinnMacCool said:
Human beings are adaptable creatures but extremely selfish. We would destroy beautiful things for our own conveniance. It is my opinion that protecting beautiful things is more important then money or petty inconveniences. I know I'm gonna be alone in this but I dearly regret that we have sacrificed all this land and built these things all over it. Perhaps it was unavoidable but its a shame.

What do you think about this? How much should we exploit the enviroment for our benefit?
That might be true where you live, but out in the western USA, excluding parts of the left coast (California), there is still an abundance of open space, untamed and unmolested land, great scenery, etc.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That might be true where you live, but out in the western USA, excluding parts of the left coast (California), there is still an abundance of open space, untamed and unmolested land, great scenery, etc.
If you go on google earth and look at Long Island the whole damn place is a suburban wasteland. Upstate theres some more stuff but its pretty much just bullshit over here.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
FinnMacCool said:
Human beings are adaptable creatures but extremely selfish. We would destroy beautiful things for our own conveniance. It is my opinion that protecting beautiful things is more important then money or petty inconveniences. I know I'm gonna be alone in this but I dearly regret that we have sacrificed all this land and built these things all over it. Perhaps it was unavoidable but its a shame.

What do you think about this? How much should we exploit the enviroment for our benefit?
It does help the economy by providing jobs and increasing retail sales.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Reaction score
3,419
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All things in Moderation.....I would prefer we simply develop with ecology in mind...easy...No...but doable.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FinnMacCool said:
Human beings are adaptable creatures but extremely selfish. We would destroy beautiful things for our own conveniance. It is my opinion that protecting beautiful things is more important then money or petty inconveniences. I know I'm gonna be alone in this but I dearly regret that we have sacrificed all this land and built these things all over it. Perhaps it was unavoidable but its a shame.

What do you think about this? How much should we exploit the enviroment for our benefit?
I would altruistically say not at all....
When things were more prosperous, I was a member of the World Wildlife Fund; I gave to them yearly and used their products for Christmas gifts, etc.
I live in the most populated state in the union and everytime I see woods destroyed for housing, etc., my heart drops.
NJ has a farmland preservation program-I'd much rather see a woodland preservation program-at least when farms are sold and built on, no flora is destroyed, no animals displaced and some addition of trees and shrubbery is included.
An interesting side note: It's always been a fact that crowding animals into small areas, be it at a zoo or in the wild, increases their aggressiveness, makes them more violent and prone to absurd behaviors. We humans are an animal form and I sometimes think we are behaving the same as areas get more populated. We're angrier, more aggressive and grabby and our respect for others is diminishing. But when I travel out of this area, whether to the midwest or the south, this is not as apparent.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
Human beings are adaptable creatures but extremely selfish. We would destroy beautiful things for our own conveniance. It is my opinion that protecting beautiful things is more important then money or petty inconveniences. I know I'm gonna be alone in this but I dearly regret that we have sacrificed all this land and built these things all over it. Perhaps it was unavoidable but its a shame.

What do you think about this? How much should we exploit the enviroment for our benefit?
No Offense, but it doesn't bother you so much that you have not given it up. You still live in Long Island, so why not a hut in the woods? What you are really dealing with is your refusal to admit, for all it's flaws, you like what you live in.

By not leaving you are in fact, choosing to stay, over the alternatives. Even a passive act is still born of choice.

Also, ALL LIFE is selfish. you thinks rats, dogs, fish, whales, ants or bacteria have any concern for the environment, science or have environmental impact studies done? no, they do their thing, and everything else be damned. Humans, as selfish as we are, are actually LESS selfish that other species.

Selfishness is necessary for survival, and the self, is really the only thing that we know, and know through.

What people like you actually want, is not "nature or urbanization," it's urbanization more naturally, otherwise, you would have given up the urbanization in favor of nature already. Now, urbanization more naturally, has certain merits. There are waste management systems that can take advantage of natural systems, better than dumping concentrations into the ground, and many other ideas we can incorporate, some even cheaper, capital wise, though maybe more complex.
 
Last edited:

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No Offense, but it doesn't bother you so much that you have not given it up. You still live in Long Island, so why not a hut in the woods? What you are really dealing with is your refusal to admit, for all it's flaws, you like what you live in.
Well thats something I cannot help, being only 16. And it is not that I regret the places where I live in. It is nice and comfortable with many good people but its just sad that we can't live as we could've long ago. I think if we were a little more careful, we could've done something.

Actually, I definatly plan on moving away somewhere when I get older. I've thought of going to Scotland.
Also, ALL LIFE is selfish. you thinks rats, dogs, fish, whales, ants or bacteria have any concern for the environment, science or have environmental impact studies done? no, they do their thing, and everything else be damned. Humans, as selfish as we are, are actually LESS selfish that other species.

Selfishness is necessary for survival, and the self, is really the only thing that we know, and know through.

What people like you actually want, is not "nature or urbanization," it's urbanization more naturally, otherwise, you would have given up the urbanization in favor of nature already. Now, urbanization more naturally, has certain merits. There are waste management systems that can take advantage of natural systems, better than dumping concentrations into the ground, and many other ideas we can incorporate, some even cheaper, capital wise, though maybe more complex.
Selfishness isn't neccesary for survival. Indeed, one would find that, for the benefit of humanity, it is actually better to work together. But, as no one in their right mind would want to live like that, we are stuck with this. But humans are upsetting the balance of nature because we have become too powerful for our own good. We are on a path to destruction and it cannot be hindered unless we, for the sake of our own existence, we put ahead enviromental safety instead of these petty inconveniances.
 

ddoyle00

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
3000 miles east of you
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Where is all this doom and gloom coming from? I understand about your age correlating with your burning desire to change something, but you really are being rash.

A few years ago in a study funded by the U.N. into world population in the future, they made some interesting predictions. In three possible scenarios, two ended up with the world balanced and able to sustain itself in terms of human populations. They more or less agreed that by 2050, the pop. will even out somewhere 9-15 billion with a possible drop after that. Along with that study, it is also predicted that the we already make more than enough in terms of food to handle our current pop. of around 7 billion and will be prepared in 50 years for the estimated pop.

In terms of pollution, the United States has consistently met and exceeded every ordinance put out by the U.N. although Europe still lags behind. If you move to Scotland, good luck finding a job there. When the Euro drops (and it will) America will start to look a lot better.

So what do we have left? Energy needs? I am estimating it will be another 50-75 years before oil gets to be too expensive to drill and we will either HAVE to drill in the gulf or look in Alaska; although most experts agree that the oil reserves in Alaska are minimal. Forget all the hype about hydrogen unless its for a factory. With current technology, the cells used in cars are too small and limited. Natural gas? The largest reserves are in Russia, but it will cost an estimated 1,000,000 per mile to pipe it over here and almost that much to ship it by cargo boat since its very unstable.

Hope I helped.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ddoyle00 said:
Where is all this doom and gloom coming from? I understand about your age correlating with your burning desire to change something, but you really are being rash.

A few years ago in a study funded by the U.N. into world population in the future, they made some interesting predictions. In three possible scenarios, two ended up with the world balanced and able to sustain itself in terms of human populations. They more or less agreed that by 2050, the pop. will even out somewhere 9-15 billion with a possible drop after that. Along with that study, it is also predicted that the we already make more than enough in terms of food to handle our current pop. of around 7 billion and will be prepared in 50 years for the estimated pop.

In terms of pollution, the United States has consistently met and exceeded every ordinance put out by the U.N. although Europe still lags behind. If you move to Scotland, good luck finding a job there. When the Euro drops (and it will) America will start to look a lot better.

So what do we have left? Energy needs? I am estimating it will be another 50-75 years before oil gets to be too expensive to drill and we will either HAVE to drill in the gulf or look in Alaska; although most experts agree that the oil reserves in Alaska are minimal. Forget all the hype about hydrogen unless its for a factory. With current technology, the cells used in cars are too small and limited. Natural gas? The largest reserves are in Russia, but it will cost an estimated 1,000,000 per mile to pipe it over here and almost that much to ship it by cargo boat since its very unstable.

Hope I helped.
With slight shifts if food-type production (i.e. less meat, more fruits, vegies and grains), the UN estimated that 40 BILLION people could be SUSTAINED on Earth. (Meat though necessary and very tastey, needs a lot more plant-energy to produce, then be eaten by people, than people would need if they just ate the plants themselves.)
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well animals know better than too S$%! where they live, shouldn't we notice our mess also, for much the same reasons?

Solution one word. HEMP

KMS
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We should exploit the environment 100%.

Perhaps you should expend some effort and define the word "benefit"?

Somepeople will "benefit" from trees cut down to make houses, furniture, and paper on the site where the forest once stood.

Other people "benefit" by cutting down the trees, making the houses, furniture, and paper, and by selling it, shipping it, or otherwise being part of the economic cycle.

Still others will "benefit" by having a missing forest to cry about.

Some people, who "benefit" by looking at trees, or the birds, the beasts, or the bugs that live with them, will have to find anothe forest. If they're smart, they'll use their money to buy this forest and make it a self-sustaining profitable venture by charging admission to it, thus also becoming part of the economic cycle. Perhaps they could buy it with truckloads of Sacajawea Dollars so they won't be expanding the demand for paper money?
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Humans have screwed up in big ways, but we are learning. Progress is inevitable, and so are the problems associated with it. But, if you think things are bad now, read up on your history and see how we lived just a few hundred years ago. It ain't pretty!
Try being part of the solutions rather than seek asylum in some foreign place. Become a scientist and work toward finding ways for us to coexist with our environment in a less damaging way.
But don't hide in a hole and bemoan what the rest of the world is doing, because they are going to do what they need to do in order to survive, whether you like it or not.
I just finished the Bill Bryson book, a Short History of nearly Everything. I recommend it, it is a good read, and it will give you some perspective of how we got where we are and maybe some insight as to what the future holds.
The author tells us about the scientists who discovered how the earth works, and that is something we should all be more aware of. He also tells us just how unlikely it is that we are here and thriving, despite all the odds against life existing here at all. Impress your teachers, do a book report on it....
 

Loxd4

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Mother Eather This To Big To Hurt
-Unknow Auther-

I forgot the quther name but he was a gernal in the US Navy.....Mother Eather well hurt you before we hurt it.
 

Touchmaster

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
People who cry 'jobs over trees' would do well to study the fate of the isolated population of Easter Island, who cut down all their forests to make status symbols and farms, onlt to find that they now live in an irreversibly impoversihed world in which they were trapped and starving.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
We need to preserve old growth forests.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Touchmaster said:
People who cry 'jobs over trees' would do well to study the fate of the isolated population of Easter Island, who cut down all their forests to make status symbols and farms, onlt to find that they now live in an irreversibly impoversihed world in which they were trapped and starving.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html
Yeah, but of course, they were too dumb to replant them, that was the problem. We actually have more trees now (and I understand the implications of mono-cultural forests), than when the european settlers landed. This point then, is to show, we are in no meaningful dangers of cutting down all our trees.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nearly every single ancient civilization that did not co-exist with the environment was destroyed. ie mesopotamia over irrigation causing ground salt to leech out destroying the soil for any further agriculture. Though China is a slight exception to this rule.

I believe the most destructive power facing the world that is far worse than simply destruction of the environment is population. Every individual has the drive to live and prosper, unfortunatly there is simply not enough space and time that would allow for the ever growing population world over. Yet nevertheless there are countries that still promote population growth even though thier country really can not support such (ie India). Be it for religious reasons or political reasons, everything else is secondary to population control.

Europe has pretty much reached an equilibrium of it's population and is actually facing a decline in population, that's fine since most of it's industry is fully automated. China, probably the only developing country in the world that is actively trying to decrease it's population.... though in a very drastic methodology. US is pretty much even in terms of population, however on the other side the US is expereincing the most out of balance form of lifestyle with the environment. Though per unit surface area the US is much much cleaner then any other nation, it has much to attribute to only 200 years of civilization and remaining farily isolated from the rest of the world.
India is in my opinion the most backwards of all countries in terms of population control. Not only is it not trying to control growth of population, but it seemingly actively supports population growth, some of this is religious in nature, but mostly this is political and economical.

Agent Smith of Matrix (first one) really nailed population control: ".....humans are like a virus, using up every available resource until it's gone, then move on to another host....."
It's inevitable human nature to do so, regardless of how much we try to do otherwise, the process itself is rarely in equilibrium with the environment.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jfuh said:
Nearly every single ancient civilization that did not co-exist with the environment was destroyed. ie mesopotamia over irrigation causing ground salt to leech out destroying the soil for any further agriculture. Though China is a slight exception to this rule.

I believe the most destructive power facing the world that is far worse than simply destruction of the environment is population. Every individual has the drive to live and prosper, unfortunatly there is simply not enough space and time that would allow for the ever growing population world over. Yet nevertheless there are countries that still promote population growth even though thier country really can not support such (ie India). Be it for religious reasons or political reasons, everything else is secondary to population control.

Europe has pretty much reached an equilibrium of it's population and is actually facing a decline in population, that's fine since most of it's industry is fully automated. China, probably the only developing country in the world that is actively trying to decrease it's population.... though in a very drastic methodology. US is pretty much even in terms of population, however on the other side the US is expereincing the most out of balance form of lifestyle with the environment. Though per unit surface area the US is much much cleaner then any other nation, it has much to attribute to only 200 years of civilization and remaining farily isolated from the rest of the world.
India is in my opinion the most backwards of all countries in terms of population control. Not only is it not trying to control growth of population, but it seemingly actively supports population growth, some of this is religious in nature, but mostly this is political and economical.

Agent Smith of Matrix (first one) really nailed population control: ".....humans are like a virus, using up every available resource until it's gone, then move on to another host....."
It's inevitable human nature to do so, regardless of how much we try to do otherwise, the process itself is rarely in equilibrium with the environment.
There are numerous philosophical and literal reasons why Smith was wrong. Not to mention, you did see the machine world right, way worse that humans. I mean, in seven "the one" generations (of about 100 years each) the machines couldn't clean up the sky riiiight. pbbft
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
libertarian_knight said:
There are numerous philosophical and literal reasons why Smith was wrong. Not to mention, you did see the machine world right, way worse that humans. I mean, in seven "the one" generations (of about 100 years each) the machines couldn't clean up the sky riiiight. pbbft
:confused:
That really wasn't the portion of my argument I was hoping for you to focus on.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
23,345
Reaction score
14,412
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
We should exploit the environment 100%.

Perhaps you should expend some effort and define the word "benefit"?

Somepeople will "benefit" from trees cut down to make houses, furniture, and paper on the site where the forest once stood.

Other people "benefit" by cutting down the trees, making the houses, furniture, and paper, and by selling it, shipping it, or otherwise being part of the economic cycle.

Still others will "benefit" by having a missing forest to cry about.

Some people, who "benefit" by looking at trees, or the birds, the beasts, or the bugs that live with them, will have to find anothe forest. If they're smart, they'll use their money to buy this forest and make it a self-sustaining profitable venture by charging admission to it, thus also becoming part of the economic cycle. Perhaps they could buy it with truckloads of Sacajawea Dollars so they won't be expanding the demand for paper money?
Luckily, other than President Bush, most everyone else would probably disagree with you. Our national heritage is our land, our Forests and Rivers. Without them, we are just another Afghanistan. We the people have already bought a great deal of forest. It’s called the National Forest and National Parks Systems. Every citizen owns our Public Lands. Every citizen has a voice, should they choose to exercise it, in how our public lands are managed. Every citizen has the opportunity to enjoy those lands we all own. While you may see public land as a poor investment, the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans view them as our National Treasures.

Also, paper money is not made out of forest products. It’s made out of cotton and linen.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Human beings are adaptable creatures but extremely selfish. We would destroy beautiful things for our own conveniance. It is my opinion that protecting beautiful things is more important then money or petty inconveniences. I know I'm gonna be alone in this but I dearly regret that we have sacrificed all this land and built these things all over it. Perhaps it was unavoidable but its a shame.

What do you think about this? How much should we exploit the enviroment for our benefit?
I can't eat trees?

UtahBill said:
That might be true where you live, but out in the western USA, excluding parts of the left coast (California), there is still an abundance of open space, untamed and unmolested land, great scenery, etc.
Truly, large national parks and wilderness that are extremely enjoyable. Still, if worse comes to worse (the population grows) and we have to use more... the point is, you can't eat trees, or many other beautiful things for that matter.

It's a balance, keep some beautify, use some to live, it's what we have to do.

FinnMacCool said:
If you go on google earth and look at Long Island the whole damn place is a suburban wasteland. Upstate theres some more stuff but its pretty much just bullshit over here.
Move.

Niccolo and Donkey said:
Enough so that life is sustainable. All else is gravy.
Explain "sustainable."

tecoyah said:
All things in Moderation.....I would prefer we simply develop with ecology in mind...easy...No...but doable.
Me, Tecoyah, and Aristotle* are my favorite people :D

*Aristotle's "attaining the median" in life.

libertarian_knight said:
Also, ALL LIFE is selfish. you thinks rats, dogs, fish, whales, ants or bacteria have any concern for the environment, science or have environmental impact studies done? no, they do their thing, and everything else be damned. Humans, as selfish as we are, are actually LESS selfish that other species.
Early life had a predominantly carbon dioxide atmosphere, and they lived fine in it. But boy did they **** that up, putting out all that oxygen, using all that CO2, till it was gone, and Oxygen was fricking everywhere.

CaliNORML said:
Solution one word. HEMP
Mmmmmmm, yummy sustaining hemp...

Touchmaster said:
People who cry 'jobs over trees' would do well to study the fate of the isolated population of Easter Island, who cut down all their forests to make status symbols and farms, onlt to find that they now live in an irreversibly impoversihed world in which they were trapped and starving.
Mmmmmmm, yummy sustaining trees...

libertarian_knight said:
Yeah, but of course, they were too dumb to replant them, that was the problem. We actually have more trees now (and I understand the implications of mono-cultural forests), than when the european settlers landed. This point then, is to show, we are in no meaningful dangers of cutting down all our trees.
Mmmmmmm, partisan garbage (right)...

Luckily, other than President Bush, most everyone else would probably disagree with you. Our national heritage is our land, our Forests and Rivers. Without them, we are just another Afghanistan.
I'm going to have a stomach ache after ingesting all this garbage (left this time!)...

jfuh said:
Europe has pretty much reached an equilibrium of it's population and is actually facing a decline in population, that's fine since most of it's industry is fully automated.
Europe (at least Western Europe) has transitioned from the industry based economy to the service based economy, all nations that have moved into this type of economy have lower birth and fertility rates, it's part of the transition.

jfuh said:
India is in my opinion the most backwards of all countries in terms of population control. Not only is it not trying to control growth of population, but it seemingly actively supports population growth, some of this is religious in nature, but mostly this is political and economical.
India has tried to limit their population, and continues to try. If their culture and religion support large families, it is no fault of the government. India is still in the agrarian based economy phase (where families are large, birth and fertility rates high), although they are quickly trying to move straight into a service based economy (skipping the Industry transformation).
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
-Demosthenes- said:
India has tried to limit their population, and continues to try. If their culture and religion support large families, it is no fault of the government. India is still in the agrarian based economy phase (where families are large, birth and fertility rates high), although they are quickly trying to move straight into a service based economy (skipping the Industry transformation).
I take back my statement of government attempt to limit population.

The part about culture and religion supporting large families. I have a problem with that. Though I respect such establishments I also believe that when it comes to population and the sustainable amount in the world particularly in each individual country, with specific regards to already massively populated countries such as China and India, I believe that much more stringint measures need to be taken such as contraception as well as specific surgical proceedures such as sterilizations after a given number of pregnancies.
I recognize that it would be very difficult to implement any sterilization measures as mostly due to human nature there will be great ethical concerns.
I still don't believe however that enough is being done in India to control it's population growth and this needs to be an issue that should require much more attention as it really impacts all parts of any nation.
 
Top Bottom