Debate Topic: Environmentalism (Little Upsilon)

"1 word: Nuclear"

"i do agree about the nuclear thing though. too bad nobody wants the waste in their states"

I'm no scientist, but I don't know that nuclear energy is the best option. It is a limited resource as well. Last I heard we may have enough Uranium and Plutonium to last from 50 to 100 years at current consumption rates. With technological advances that may increase that range but energy consumption will increase as well.... Look what China did in only a decade and India is right behind them.

Honestly, I have no idea what can be done to solve the energy problems we'll face in the future. Thank God for smarter people than me!

Sorry I don't have anything to add to the environmentalist debate. I'd rather stay away from that soapbox.

BC

Known uranium reserves, those currently being exploited, are in excess of 200 years at todays rates of consumption.

Since exploration was only conducted on a serious basis for less than 10 years in 1950's-1960's, actual deposits are believed to be much greater. Much, much greater.

Money makes the world go round. Whilst there is easy money to be made from fossil fuels you can forget about alternative sources of enegy taking over.
Oil station are cheaper than nuclear power stations. So nuclear is a no no.
Wind turbines spoil the view of the countryside according to environmentalists, I actually think they look quite nice.
Solar pannels may provide a good export to our middle eatern friends rather than tanks. They could probably power the world with all the sun they get. Probably not very practical, but al least they wont need nuclear power.

"Known uranium reserves, those currently being exploited, are in excess of 200 years at todays rates of consumption."

Funny how many sources can say many different things. Conservationists sources will state fewer reserves and Expansionists greater. For all you and I actually know the U and Pu resources could run out tomorrow.

This is the Science of the 21st century..... Question EVERYTHING.

Anyways, we can agree that nuclear power is a limited thing. The more we use it the less we'll have. We'll still need something else.

Quote from william Ryan: 'Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.3%.'

Now, the bigger the life form the bigger the measurment of enviromental change would have to happen before it would have an impact on it's survival. But for our tiny life forms (which happen to be at the beginning of the food chain) the measurment of enviromental change that creates death is tiny.
Your 0.3 to us is nothing, but to life at the beginning of our food chain 0.3 seems to be enough to kill them.

Both us and the living natural world have the ability to change our enviroment. Some of the living help in the natural balance of survival. Some are a hindrance in the natural balance. We are a hindrance. Like 1000 elephants roaming through a field of flowers. Or a million wood worm in a tree, we have done what we wanted and consumed what we wanted, regardless of the concequences and warnings.
To the point where we might have even tipped the balance of life to death.

lol nix. We are a part of the living natural world. Only a religious view would state otherwise.

As for macro analysis of the world's food chain, ever hear of "fuzzy" science?

Hello FarmerBob.
I know I'm talking to all sorts out there.

I take it your talking about companies like Montana that can produce seeds that produce a crop which seeds cant be germinated to grow next years crop. Meaning you have to buy seeds again the year after to grow another crop.
You can keep them.
If woman did'nt desire the man who has everything. Man would'nt need to consume/destroy our natural enviroment to get the wealth for the woman to desire him.

Anyway. You still hav'nt answered how things are going to change for the better if countries go bankrupt.

You said on another thread: 'As nations prosper, concern for the environment will follow in due course.'

And I asked: 'as nation's become poorer, what happens then?'

As nations become poorer they become dirtier. As nations prosper, they place greater emphasis on maintaining the natural beauty of their country. Not everywhere, or where you might prefer, or to what degree; but, conservation begins when there is public perception that the nation can afford to remove land from economic exploitation.

Wealth provides the shift in priorities towards the asthetic, which is what environmental concerns are. It is the appreciation of beauty that places works of art into museums, historical sites into preservation, and land into parks. And as we have already discussed, unexploited land is the only real environmental virtue.

Doomsday prophecies of microcontamination or grand pronouncements about entire ecosystems that exist only in computer models is worship of the microcosm and Malthusian self-hatred.

Real pollution can seen and measured directly. It's effects are obvious. That kind of Environmental Protection is not politically powerful, however. It is too simple, fixable, and quantifiable to fit into the great socioeconomic worldview of the "Environmentalists".

However, how many living creatures base their survival instincts on what's good for the environment?

There is the myth that the "natural world" is always in balance. Hardly. It is always out of balance. Living things procreate and are consumed or die off. Where is it ever in perfect harmony outside the minds of so-called environmentalists?

Over 99% of all species have become extinct.

Where's the balance in that?

I'm not much of a conservationist myself but they make some good points. The large aquifer (I forget its name at the moment) that provides water to the middle of the US is being used up. If it dissapears then what happens to the corn, wheat, etc fields that are throughout that region? Melting ice caps are going to rduce the availablitiy of water in other places as well.

I don't know that there is anything to do about this but humans are notorious at reacting rather than planning. We're going to have to find a way to adapt to all of these changes. We may not have to live through this, but our children or grandchildren may. I think that's the whole point of this. I certainly hope I'm not around for that, but I'm concerned for my daughter and any future kids/grandchildren I may have. It's really a downer when you think about it.

But, if there is an active God in the universe (which I believe there is) then He'll hopefully take care of this. If not, we may need to start cloning Einstein to get genius back to solve our future problems.

Damn. That's depressing. Sorry.

BC

Humans are a cancer that is spreading across the body of the earth. Happy days for us at the moment, but as the body begins to die so shall the cancer.
Advanced civilisation is a finely balanced thing. It would not take much to send us crashing back down.
The smartest scientist will soon stop researching and start looking for food when their stomach starts to rumlble.
The most humane soldier will stop obeying 'human rights' when his family starts to go hungary.
When his neighbour steels his food, the power plant worker will stay at home.
A small rise in temperature may not seem a big deal, but the world can not feed itself at the moment, what will happen when the food and water shortages start to spread?
Britain for one cant feed itself, China and India are to big for themselves. Maybe it will be time for a new British empire, but the world has changed, it wont be so easy this time. War world three will soon be upon us. Not for idealism, not against some evil world power, but to feed ourselves.

That might be World War 4. World War 3 will be about energy, most likely. It will be the more pressing concern once the world economies start to rebound.

And that Vali, is exactly the kind of grand Malthusian prohecy that I am talking about.

It shows no appreciation of the natural world, only sociopathic self-hatred.

Survival is the basics of the natural world.

All I ask on behalf of Mother Nature is when the time comes. DONT BURN TYRES.

BorderC, People already starve to death in this world. Our good lord does nothing to help them. Why will he help Americans above others?
Human kinds destiny is in our own hands. We have the means and the ability to change our paths.
If you are blind to the danger or under estimate it you will not avoid it.
We way disagree about the impact of humans on the environment, but one thing is for sure. The best way is not to wait and find out who is correct, but to take action now so that we dont have to find out.
Most of us buy house insurance, just in case. Luckily I have never needed it, but I am not going to stop paying for it just in case I happen to be the next unlucky person. So why risk the home to us all?

LOL Vali. You will die in a car accident in the next year.

You had better never leave your home, because what if I'm right?

That is your logic.

We are the gaurdians of our futures lifes. It's not about our own fear of death.

You might be right FarmerBob. Alot of people do die in car accidents. What's your point?

It does not show self hatred. Only the realisation of the power of the human race. We have the ability to destory or save this world. Within certain limits of course.
To other species I am sure we would appear as a cancer. Spreading and destroying all before us.
But unlike cancer we have the ability to realise the consequences of our actions. The world is warming, no doubt about it. Has for how much is due to us, it does not matter. All we can do is stop our contribution to it and hope that it is enough.
If its not, we will then have to find other means.
For if the humble plankoton starts to die, we all die. Well just the oxygen breathers anyway.

No my logic is to take the precautions you are able to take.

When I get in my car I put my seat belt on, and look where I am going. Hopefully farmer bob in his tractor is watching where he is going and wont miss the red light and hit me ;-)

And incidently, the world produced sufficient food to feed itself for the last several thousand years.

Notice the human population grows?

Local famine due to natural disasters have occured, but the 20th Century has seen only deliberately induced starvation by governments. Famine as a weapon.

Furthur factoid for you nix. As nations become wealthier, they reproduce less. So much for the "embrace the Third World Way" for population control.

Yes the human population grows and feeds itself.
Britain was once mostly forset, it is now mainly farmland.
The Amazon gets more and more destroyed each year to provide more farmland.
At some point the ability to acquire new farmland to feed a growing population will be exceeded.
Plus the destruction of forests destoys a carbon sink, which adds CO2 to the atmoshere increasing temperature.
But environmentalism aside, it is only the few that enjoy the amounts and quality of food that you enjoy. Most of the world gets by on the minimum. Malnutrition does not only manifest itself through famine and death, but also through nutrient difficiency. Those people that do not enjoy a good food supply live but suffer health consequences.

FarmerBob.
My point is that nations are becoming poorer.
I wonder what you think is going to happen as a result of this?

"And incidently, the world produced sufficient food to feed itself for the last several thousand years.

Notice the human population grows?"

It has grown substantially. At some point it will peak. Biology has some graph of this. There is some line called the K line I beleive which shows how populations multiply, then exponentially grow, peak and then die off substantially. Granted, humans may be very different than other species, but happens when something like the Ogallala Aquifer (Wikipediad it) dries up and you the midwest agricultural production? We're not talking about just Americans being affected by this, the entire world, including Africa would be affected. It may not even be the only one facing that problem.

There's not a lot you can do to mitigate it either, Vali. You can stop using as much but that means cutting down on production which means shortages now. Maybe there is something to do. I don't know.

Doesn't matter. The world is suppose to end on Dec. 21 2012 anyways, right?

BC

"My point is that nations are becoming poorer."

Nix, are you talking about this economic downturn? That's only a temporary, short-term problem. Even in this economic depression most countries are far better off than they were even 20 years ago as far as standards of living. This is part opinion and part objective truth.

@FarmerBob
"Local famine due to natural disasters have occured, but the 20th Century has seen only deliberately induced starvation by governments. Famine as a weapon."

So true!

"Over 99% of all species have become extinct.

Where's the balance in that?"

This is true also FB, but I disagree some to what your trying to convey. Species die off to make way for new species. Mammals wouldn't be here if not for the extinction of the raptors..and so on.
My point is that humans are consumers. The GREEDIEST of them all. If we keep consuming at the rates we are there won't be a next species to take over Earth. I know that the enviro folks exagerrate alot, as do the polluters. But you being of elderly staure (lol) have seen the changes in the air quality since you were a youngin'. I can go on for days on this 1.

And I personally don't think that our air and food is the issue. I really think mans demise will come from food but not from shortages. Its all the preservitives, chemicals and crap that is in it that will eventually kill us all.

Dirt