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.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.
Enough so that life is sustainable. All else is gravy.
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....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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
Move.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.
Explain "sustainable."Niccolo and Donkey said:Enough so that life is sustainable. All else is gravy.
Me, Tecoyah, and Aristotle* are my favorite peopletecoyah said:All things in Moderation.....I would prefer we simply develop with ecology in mind...easy...No...but doable.
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.
Mmmmmmm, yummy sustaining hemp...CaliNORML said:Solution one word. HEMP
Mmmmmmm, yummy sustaining trees...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, partisan garbage (right)...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.
I'm going to have a stomach ache after ingesting all this garbage (left this time!)...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.
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: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.
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 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.
I take back my statement of government attempt to limit population.-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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?