Debate Topic: Environmentalism (Little Upsilon)

I am a Conservationist, Alexander, if we must use labels. No political ideology. A registered Independent who rejects Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, and all the other -isms that substitute for independent thought.

Dirt. I cannot conclusively prove a negative, so the burden of proof fall back to your argument.

There are over 50,00 man made, regulated chemicals. Which are increasing in the environment? The demonstrable proof of their negative impact?

Pollution is a market externality that can do real damage, and has been aggressively curtailed since the 70's. I support that. And it has been sucessful by all provable measures.


Yeah right! Cleaner than what? Than before the industrial revolution? Bah! And pollution isn't being reduced. Its simply being shuffled around thru 'credits' and hidden in red tape. If you want to believe the EPA go right ahead as they are a branch of the same govt. that lies to us daily. And you say we've been reducing pollution for generations but the real pollution didn't start till the turn of the 19th century, roughly 12 generations ago. Thats hardly enough time to reverse anything we've done.
How many Prince William Sounds do we need to experiance? How many Chernobyls do we need to go thru? Three mile Islands? These pollution disaters take 10,000 years to reverse and they are piling high on us like pancakes.

Where is the evidence for this?

Exxon Valdez? The sound has recovered and you might note that nature did a better, faster job on the areas we didn't "help" clean up.

TMI. No evidence of any ill effects in the Harrisburg area and the the authorities have been looking hard for them.

Chernobyl. Yes. That is about as bad it gets. It is also a case study in the efficacy of central planning. Yet, central plannng is exactly what the Kyoto crowd advocates.

Sorry, Dirt. But you are espousing the same hysterics of the microcosm that the GW bunch is about the macro.

This movement embraces the political/psycholological jujitsu of the invisible threat. Just as there is no hard science for global warming, there is none for the parts per billion doomsday scenarios either.

Show me the pictures. The hard evidence. Not the "ifs", "could be's", computer modeled projections, and other tools of disinformation.

Real pollution leaves real evidence.

Where is it?

I'll try and keep it simple and not use lengthy boring statisics from websights that niether of us enjoy. Lets just do compairasons from lets say 50 years ago and today.

50 years ago they didn't issue many smog warnings in large cities.
Today they are a daily event, even in mid-sized cities across the globe.
Smog is poison. If it wasn't why would they bother to issue a warning?

50 years ago a majority of the natural springs and aquifers where still considered pure and safe to drink right from the source with 0 purifications.
Today, because of techniques used in mining, the water is so full of heavy metals that everything needs tested. There isn't 1 place on the planet, excluding the ice caps, that are considered pure.

50 years ago fish was healthy.
Today there are mercury warnings is many, many ecosystems..we are only allowed 4 ounces of fish per month because of health risks. MAJOR health risks.

70 odd years ago we discovered nuclear fission/fusion. Since then we, along with many other countries, have released ungodly amounts of radioactive poisons into our world and it still continues to this day.

Today the test sights are still considered 'dead'. Bikini Atoll will never recover. The Nevada desert will never recover. The underground tests that we, along with all the other nuclear countries have done damage that we have yet to see, via water tables.

I can type for days on the damage we have done to our beatiful planet but I think the above is a good start...and the above doesn't really need boring 'proof' that you request as you know full well that its true.

Now the coral reefs dying, the garbage dumps, the damage done by leaded fuels are all revelant in this debate but I would hafta list a bunch of boring crap to drive my point home, I'll spare you that! lol

I agree that global warming really doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned but the poisons do. We as a species on planet Earth really need to wake up if our children are to get the chance that we all got.


Once again, great debate Farmer Bob!
Dirt

"50 years ago a majority of the natural springs and aquifers where still considered pure and safe to drink right from the source with 0 purifications."

Many Settlers Died from such fun diseases as Salmonella, dysenteriae, lysteria, E. coli, cholerae and C. parvum. Dirty water is dirty water, no matter how you shake a stick at it. One of the leading cause of Death in Africa is WATER BORN ILLNESSES. The same old school ones too.

"70 odd years ago we discovered nuclear fission/fusion. Since then we, along with many other countries, have released ungodly amounts of radioactive poisons into our world and it still continues to this day.'

In France they have developed a revolutionary Nuclear waste recyclement program. Almost all of the wast is reused. More countries will soon adopt this same method.

/side note- on the subject of Global Warming. The Earth spouts out 98% of the C02 that goes into our atmosphere. Cars and coal factories don't touch a volcano. if your in a big cities that sits in a valley, of course your gonna have smog.
------------------------------------------------
I agree with FB, for thousands of years the ones in control scare people into conforming i.e. Hell, the apocalyps, terrorists and michel Jackson.
It's like a Rope-a-dope. They get you looking this way while they sneak up behind you and sodamize you with the bill of rights. The more you look at what might happen, the less you see what is happening.


Poo-Bah

"Many Settlers Died from such fun diseases as Salmonella, dysenteriae, lysteria, E. coli, cholerae and C. parvum. Dirty water is dirty water, no matter how you shake a stick at it. One of the leading cause of Death in Africa is WATER BORN ILLNESSES. The same old school ones too."


These are living pathogens- bacteria and virus types, which are some of Mother Nature finest creations. I'm talking about man-made, man-administered POISONS. You can boil the water and kill anything living. You can boil water till its gone and it won't remove the toxins.

"In France they have developed a revolutionary Nuclear waste recyclement program. Almost all of the wast is reused. More countries will soon adopt this same method."

And just where did the French get the nuclear waste? Did you know that France has the worlds 3rd largest nuclear arsonal behing the US and Russia? Yep, more than China I'm afraid. France has set off 210 nuclear tests since 1960. Thats alot of lil floaty, glowing stuff!

"And just where did the French get the nuclear waste? Did you know that France has the worlds 3rd largest nuclear arsonal behing the US and Russia? Yep, more than China I'm afraid. France has set off 210 nuclear tests since 1960. Thats alot of lil floaty, glowing stuff!"

Some radio-active material from nuclear blasts disapates. And besides, I'm not saying that there hasn't been harmful waste created (I've already told you that we should dump it all on the moon. We aint using it anyways). I am saying, however, that we can now better our methodes. Such is way of progress.

Can you imagine the fall out if one of those rockets taking it to the moon exploded before leaving our atmosphere?

Bump...

As one of the few intelligent conversations left, this deserves a bump.

Are these forums always this bad??? It's a constant war.... I hope this doesn't scare off new people...

Bump...

As one of the few intelligent conversations left, this deserves a bump.

Are these forums always this bad??? It's a constant war.... I hope this doesn't scare off new players...

I agree Border, this is actually a FUN thread. A thread where we may not agree, but we are all looking for solutions thru healthy debate.

Lets keep the ball rolling. Where are ya Farmer Bob?
anyone else have any input or opinions?


Dirt

I will add a lengthy post, shortly. I needed to track down a book that I misplaced in my library.

@Dirt. Passionate manifesto. Where is my evidence?

Where are the dead fish with toxic levels of contaminants?

Where are the hospitals full of sick and dying?

Where are the wrongful death lawsuits?

I am waiting for you to advance the argument. At least give the sociological justifications for you philosophy if your don't feel like researching the data.

I believe it is important, at this point, to intellectually step back and define some terms as well as discuss the underlying philosophies behind the environmental debate. The purpose of this is to place into context my responses to specific "issues" as well as provide background for the terminology and references that I use.

Therefore, let us begin by examining the nature of modern environmentalism as opposed to the traditional conservationism that I champion.

The first terms that I will use were coined by an academic named Amory Lovins, who published a article in a 1976 issue of Foreign Affairs entitled "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken."
The article gained great influence in the thinking and shaping of environmentalist energy views. Lovins referred to various energy sources as either "hard" or "soft". Those terms are particularly adaptable to differentiating the views of environmentalists vs conservationists.

We both start from the common ground of reverence for the natural world and desire to see it preserved. However, "Hard" and "Soft" Greens differ greatly on diagnosis of the problems and how to responsibly address them.

The first quarrels arise from the underlying facts of the issues. One might suppose that rigorous scientific investigation and disciplined economics would settle any such disagreements, but they don't and won't, and here is why:

Let us begin with Soft Green science. In a classic 1972 essay, nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg used the term "trans-science" to describe the study of phenomena too large, rare, diffuse, or long term to be resolved by scientific means. Those means used by chemists, physicists, engineers, et al. that revolve around rigorous testing and controlled experimentation under the strict principles of the Scientific Method. The phenomena of trans-science are epistemologically "scientific", and yet, for strictly practical reasons, unanswerable by science.

One of his examples would be that it would take eight billion mice to perform a statistically significant test of radiation at levels the EPA deems "safe" using traditional, accepted scientific methodology. The computer model used instead to set that official threshold may by exactly right, or it may be way off in either direction. The only certainty is that no billion mice experiment will ever be conducted. Even if it did, countless other critical components of the model would remain unverified.

For example, both hard and soft green agree that pollutants in well-defined populations, where exposures are high, and effects strong and quick are certainly bad things in need of immediate remedy. The tough part comes when we attempt to scale out and down from that scenario. From high exposure to low. From short time frames to long, from small, highly exposed populations to huge ones that are hardly exposed at all. Infinite scope and zero effect can be multiplied out to quite a bit or nothing at all. It all comes down to the model.

The untestability of the models of these phenomena are their inherent, fatal flaw and where hard and soft green part company. It's the same dilema whether discussing statistical models for low-order-of-probability accidents or all the most far reaching models of micro-environmentalism. On global warming, ozone, species extinction, radiation, halogens, heavy metals, ad infintium, the central problem with computer models remains the same. For all these big picture issues, the time frames are too long, the effects too diffuse, and the confounding variables too numerous and misunderstood to yield any sort of objective result. Yet, the softs embrace the conclusions of these highly mutable models without question.

To believe in soft green, one must be a savant, or at least place great faith in one. For softs, only the model can do anything and explain everything. It's all rather like modern art, as deconstructed by Tom Wolfe in his classic essay, The Painted Word. The stuff on the canvass doesn't really become art at all until it's been explained to us in The New York Times. You read about it first. Only then, if one is a person of sufficient refinement and good taste, does one "see" what is actually there.

The softness of soft green science is rarely apparent in the summaries presented to us in the mass media or kid's classrooms, however. Those accounts always convey a very high degree of certitude even when couched in terms of "if" and "possibly". While the modelers start with good intentions and honest effort to make a serious product, they betray themselves by attempting to tackle subjects far beyond our capability or knowledge.

The issue is not with computer modeling, per se, but the refusal to recognize its practical limitations. Whereas, we use computer models for nearly everything we build today. A numerical model can be built for nearly anything: a bridge, a circuit board, a space shuttle, or a car. In these applications, the mathematical model of the component pieces are constructed and then analyzed for how the entire system will behave. This is System Dynamics, a well-established, quantitative discipline for tracking the flows of electric current, fluid, heat, and mechanical energy through a system, to determine how it will move, warm, cool, oscillate, resonate, amplify, stabilize, or die out. The basic rules are not very different from rules of accounting. Track energy and materials as they move through the system, conforming with conservation laws that are tested and well understood. The complexity lies in the number of the calculations but not the mathematical validity of the basic priciples.

But what happens when we attempt to model systems that are less well understood? Whose basic principles are mostly assumptions without any mathematical foundation?
These are the soft green models. And they are nearly uniformly the source of all the dire predictions, from Malthusian economic scarcities to doomsday environmental scenario.

Hard greens believe in hard science. Our concerns about pollution, environmental degradation, and biodiversity are every bit as great and sincere as the soft greens, but we do not espouse reckless actions under the dubious conclusions of "trans-science". For one simple reason:

Such actions, as championed by the softs, have proven to HARM the environment rather than help it.

My next post will address the four main areas of environmental concern.
1. Economic Scarcity
2. Pollution, Market Externalities, and their effects on the Macro and Micro Environment
3. Technology and Environmental Impacts
4. Economics of Environmentalism

Hello Farmer,
I appriciate your lengthy posts with all the many details.

With all due respect, I don't need a stinkin' computer model to know what is/will happen to the mammals of Earth!
So becaue I have no fancy weblinks, computer model graphs, etc.. what I have stated has no merit or scientific validity? BS. This is where we are suppost to step away from all that crap and go with our common sense.

Poison in our eco-system kills and I don't need a science experiment to tell me so.

Can you find any evidence that will prove what I've said is wrong? Anything thats says that nuclear waste facilities will never leak and will never manage to reach our water-tables? I KNOW that mine run-off kills. The cattle herds in central Montana had taken a beating in the 90's because of mine run-off. The mine settled with the ranchers in a hush-hush manor once it started hitting the papers. This happens everyday, somewhere , in American/the World, and you know it.

Just because scientist are studying it and passing the info doesn't mean the corps are listening or really give a crap/ Its all about the $$.

The atomic energy cartel is doing a study on whether radioacitve material can in fact reach our water...AS WE SPEAK! Why now? They didn't think of this 70 years ago when they started cropdusting the world with it?

Dirt. You are not paying attention. Do not let political view disrupt reason.

For example, both hard and soft green agree that pollutants in well-defined populations, where exposures are high, and effects strong and quick are certainly bad things in need of immediate remedy. The tough part comes when we attempt to scale out and down from that scenario. From high exposure to low. From short time frames to long, from small, highly exposed populations to huge ones that are hardly exposed at all. Infinite scope and zero effect can be multiplied out to quite a bit or nothing at all. It all comes down to the model.

In one of your examples, there is evidence for further investigation and corrective action.

In another, there is only intuitive fear of "Sandpile Theory" catastrophic system failure.

I will get to Sandpile Theory at some point and discuss its role in the analysis of systems and its application to environmental issues.

Questioning the basic scientific validity of trans-science phenomena, does not imply refusal to accept the existence of all real and potential sources of pollution.

The scientific validity becomes dubious when real data is extrapolated out across space and time to reach unsupportable conclusions. For example, taking the real data from the real problem of mine run off and prophesizing about unlimited ecological disaster from a limited phenomena.

If you are pricked by a pin, will you bleed to death? Using the trans-scientific logic you are still embracing, perhaps you will.

Science is rigorously disciplined and has stopping points where data can no longer support conclusions. Trans-science acknowledges no such stopping points. It's limits are only the limits of the imagination and fears of the "analyst".

Whether discussing issues with global implications requiring potentially huge changes to our societies or more local issues with proportionally the same consequences for local actors, the standards of science do not change. Not if we are intellectually honest and certainly not if we wish to walk into a courtroom for legal redress.

Poison in our eco-system kills and I don't need a science experiment to tell me so.

Perhaps no evidence is required for you to form personal opinions, but do not expect anyone else to take actions based upon the same intuitive approach.

Science, and every other serious discipline must remain dispassionate and apolitical to be of any use to our societies.

Octavian lived into his 90's - I'm not sure about the exact age, but let's say, for the sake of arguement, that it was even 80+; that would put his age at twice the life expectancy of a person living in the "industrial revolution" which was closer to 40.

Why would this be? Pollution, and particulate matter in the environment being recklessly thrown about into the earth. And, of course, I'm ignoring the fact that the plumbing originated in Rome, from the word "Plumbus" meaning lead. Now I don't know what it does to life-expectancy, but lead and water should not be fit for human consumption.

Anyhow, since, our life expectancies have reached BC levels. I think that means that the pollution has decreased, no?

One person is not a sample when discussing the average of the aggregate. And if you are talking about the Caesar, then that is worse.

I don't know what BC life expectancy was, I doubt you do either, but the error in your argument is astounding. There are people alive today who are 115 or so. The fact that they reached that age doesn't make that the average. If anything they are an outlier (statistacally speaking).

I'm also skeptical of your Industrial Revolution numbers.

Sources?

FarmerBob, you said: 'If you are pricked by a pin, will you bleed to death? Using the trans-scientific logic you are still embracing, perhaps you will.'

That is a good way of looking at it. If Mother Nature just had to deal with one human's polution and destruction then she would be fine. But as it would be for a human who was pricked by a billion pins at once, she also is either going into shock or dying.
It's up to each one of us to do what we can to remove our pin from Mother Natures back. Whether you are at the top or at the bottom. You should always be thinking about Mother Nature. If not for you, then for the future.
The only thing we need to sacrifice is our desire.
Peace&Hardcore.............Nix001
MNA

My point, BorderC, was simple this:
Augustus (recorded history) lived to about 80 (probably higher) and yes, he's the exception; since Suetonius discuses him, it's recorded as fact. The fact is that it's comparable to our current day maxes (120 is the theoretical maximum for humans, it being 6 times the age when our skeletons stop growing)

about the sources for my industrial revolution numbers; sorry, my memmory is good enough; but fails at that type of detail - I guess I should've thrown that caveat in there, but I didn't.

Edit:
At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, many hardships had to be overcome, causing great grief to most of the population. Faith was lost, patience was tried, and a blanket of oppression covered the people of Europe. When new inventions arose to facilitate the producing and mass-producing of goods that supplied the people of Europe, nearly everyone was forced to begin a new career within a factory. These are just some of the hardships that many loyal, hardworking citizens were faced with. [b]The reverberations of these new inventions caused a dramatic plummet of the life expectancy of an average citizen to an alarming 15 years of age.[/b] Women and children were expected to work up to 16 hours a day and doing labor that could cause serious injury, like carrying extremely heavy loads. For their work, they were paid ridiculous wages, women around 5 shillings per week, and children about 1. One can easily recognize the negative aspects of such a dramatic event. However, if one "steps back" to view the revolution as a whole, he will notice that the positive aspects completely out-weigh the negative aspects.

The article at: http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/675.php

I was talking about the upper classes having that ~40 year life expectancy.

Well, if that article is true, it doesn't support your argument. The deaths were cause by the work, not the climate or pollution.

It's still very difficult to believe. But I'm not expert.

BC

True Story- A local creek that is frequented by young kids has to be closed during the summer due to Blue Green Algae. Such problems as sinus infections, ear infections and staph infections are frequent in the Dirty water. Most people know, yet still don't request a change. The contamination comes from the up stream cattle fields. The Cattle waste runs or is dumped by ranchers into it. Restrictions and an upgrade in the cattle watering systems would solve the problem and the stream would recover.

Would the measure for the funds needed pass? No. No one would want to spend any money to better their enviroment because they would rather blow their money on toys, Drugs and vanity products. It is the Human selfishness that fuels our Decay. Our problems just won't go away.

If everyone would pay attention to the struggles of others, We could better the enviroment with out stepping on toes.

Fact- the rain forests are being destroyed. The enviromentalist blame the farmers. Almost demonizing them to force their agenda.

Fact- If Cutting down some trees means I could feed my family, I will cut down sum trees. This means the local infrustructure needs to be improved. If there is an alternative way to make money, they would gladly take that.

The point of this being, We will never solve our problems untill we face the root of the problems and the the root is in all of us. So I recommend that everyone take a step back and take a good long look at yourselves, then ask urself "what can I do". Then, maybe, shit can start to get done. Anyone can talk, few actually walk.
Poo-Bah

What gives you any more right to exist than the Blue Green Algae, or the viruses, fungi and bacteria which create these infections?

Nature always finds a balance. It is only human arrogance which assumes it must be to our advantage, or even be required to include us at all.

It is also human arrogance which assumes Mother Nature will also be able to reverse the damage that we are doing to her.
We are not just biting the hand that feeds us, were devouring it.

DK.....Don't ya think that stretches reason and logic just a little bit?

@Darke

There was no Algae in the river before the cattle waste was dumped into it. Also, the Green Aglae kills fish and other aquatic life as well. It is our duty and responsibility to rebuild and replenish nature, especially when we are the root cause.
Also, Human beings/children's welfare or blue Green Algae. I'd rather eradicate the bloom then deal with sick kids and animals. Besides, one river will not put a "Damper" on the Aglae populations.....it's algae.

Human arrogance? It's human arrogance to think that I have more of a right to exist than do viruses? That's asinine on so many levels! It's insulting to anyone reading it, to be told that we have no more right to exist than does a virus! And it's insulting to one's intelligence--obviously you don't actually believe that yourself! What's wrong with your teachers?! Make sense!

I was an environmentalist. Until I found out I was really a conservationist. I feel so silly looking back at myself to see how religiously dogmatic I was, considering I'm an atheist. I agree with Jo Jo that we are higher life (technically viruses aren't considered life), and should we have to choose it would be idiotic to not choose us, intelligent life (debatable) over simple life. But its not that black and white, if given a choice between us any some certain life choosing us over it would lead to our extinction as well. But we should try out best to never cause extinction to other life (with maybe deadly pathogens), for every species that becomes extinct, a priceless amount of knowledge is lost in biology (which later on may be used to further our technology, many advances in civilization owe itself to biology).

Global warming is happening, we can't prove its from human activity because we don't know the quantities needed to cause it. But I think your almost naive to think pumping billions of tonnes of carbon each year into the atmosphere, while simultaneously reducing the surface area of earths forests, will not have any effect. Its proven that CO2 retains radiation, recently there has been a correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature with a non correlation between solar radiance. I'm not saying correlation equals cause, but its quite convincing to me.

The small degree of temperature increase predictions may not sound like much. But I know enough about biology to know it may shift the balance or even destroy food chains. Lots of life use temperature to determine when to reproduce, smaller breeding numbers on lower steps on the food chain is enough to produce potentially catastrophic results to lifer higher up on the food chain.

Also farmerbob you don't really sound like a conservationist because your supportive of unsustainable sectors. Not that a complete sector alteration wouldn't be catastrophic to many economies, that is not a justification for inaction. Also why has no one mentioned geothermal? It seams like a promising energy sector, which may be able to compete with fuel dependent energy sectors (also solar plants in space sound promising for the future). Also to all you fat arse Americans. Stop fucking consuming so much, its not like an eating competition, what will you ever do when there is nothing left to consume?