Debate Topic: Environmentalism (Little Upsilon)

Nix does not see the avalanches of life. However humans are limited by 100 years of life to witness how the sand pile changes.

As I told you before Nix...251 million years ago the planet died. Everything above the size of a rat on land or sea went extinct. All plants but mold and spores went extinct....over a 15 million year period give or take a few hundred years.

Did we kill the planet?

No. Homo Sapiens is only a measly 100,000 years old. Our entire history and societies are but a minor drop in the bucket when considering geological time.

If we blast each other off the planet with a total nuclear exchange. Or if we are hit by an asteroid or viral outbreak.

We will be replaced by a new dominant species.

I would wager rats or cockroaches.

Its inevitable.

Your argument is so thin that I find it hard to see the point.
I'm not bothered about what happened 251 million years ago. It's what man is doing to the natural world today and the impact it will have on the future generations that I'm concerned about. I'm not to sure why you dont care and why you are willing to take the risk by sticking your head up your arse (are you from the future?). But I know your not the only one (unless you are from the future). It's people like you who can't/wont look further that you own self well being that will mess things up for my nieces and nephews and their future children. I will not allow your attempts to convert carers into non carers to succeed. It costs nothing to care, but it might cost the Earth if we don't.

Any facts and figures to back up your assumptions, Nix?

As I said. When we get the facts and figues and they show we have damaged the Natural word beyond repair, it will be to late to do anything about it.
It's all about preventing the facts and figures.
I think the biggest problem is that people feel the big picture has nothing to do with them. They either leave it upto God, Government or Queen. How can one person change the world? Unfortunatly if there is a God he is testing us, Government won't do anything that might upset us and the Queen........well she can't say anything if Government wont back her by telling us what to do.
This then leaves it up to each and every one of us to do what is right by the future. But to do that you have to care and be willing to sacrifice for something that you will hopefully never know if there was a need to.
Mans purpose in life is to be willing to sacrifice for the future. Come on Lads, grow some balls. In the wars they sacrificed there lives for the future. All we need to do is sacrifice our desires.

Ah, but surely there must be some indication that this is happening? Care to share the basis of your conclusions with us, assuming it extends beyond your own mere delusions?

If you care you will see all the indications around you. At the end of the day it's just common sense. Pollute, destroy, and consume and there will be nothing left for life to live.

Common sense and the way the world and wider universe works are not comfortable bedfellows. Any A-level physics/science student could tell you that. Just delve into the quantum or the macroscopic and you'll soon realise this.

I've done my research, and drawn my own conclusions. I've even been kind enough to share my sources and explain how I've reached my extrapolations.

Now its your turn. Give your assumptions some basis other than your narrow-minded "I believe it, so it must be true."

Your not still going on about what happened 150 years ago are you? Life has changed dramatically since then. If that is what your on about then there is nothing that I can say to you. Your stuck in the past. Look at the here and now and tell me what you see.

I'm not going on about anything other than your lack of facts. You've offered nothing to back up your arguments, and it all amounts to what you believe rather than what is.

You fail to grasp the underlying principles of prediction or even logical reasoning, and I feel truly sorry for you.

So I ask once more, prove your assumptions with something other than "Because I believe it to be true."

You don't dare predict. All you do is state things that happened 150 years ago. What use is that to the future generations?
Go on. I dare you to predict what will happen to the Environment if people all around the world continue/increase to do what they are doing.

I predict that the current destruction/pollution and consumption of the Natural world (you do know that man is doing all those things to the Natural world dont you?) will cause major problems for our futures eco system.

FarmerBob: 'As nations prosper, concern for the environment will follow in due course.'

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

Please answer me FarmerBob.

I have answered you repeatedly, Nix. We have always propspered over the long run of history and advanced in our technology and techniques to do more with less.

I will stand on the mass of thousands of years of human history.

You may stand on your delusions and prejudices.

At least have the guts to admit what it is that you advocate: misanthropic nihilism- worship nature and destroy man.

You aren't the first and are hardly alone in thinking this way.

The logical conclusion of your reasoning always leads inexorably to one simple conclusion:

Most of mankind needs to go away.

This is the central premise of Gaiaism which you are proseletyzing whether you admit it or not. Facts and figures?
You've blatantly ignored those at every turn. You aren't discussing real Environmentalism or Conservationism applied to societies and public policy.

You are arguing religion.

For the ridiculous methods of energy and food production championed by you soft-green types are utterly incapable of meeting our needs, as anyone with a decent high school science education should be perfectly aware. We have spent centuries leaving those techniques and systems behind in favor of the more productive and efficient. Most of the serious ecological damage in the world today is being done in the Thirld World through use of these antiquated practices.

The modern, industrialized West is how to save the natural world, not a return to the past that destroyed so much of it.

Only a deluded ignoramus could think that our industry and lifestyles cause more pollution now than 150 years ago. We have been curbing and reducing real pollution for so long and so successfully that you Marxists in sheep's clothing are now forced to identify naturally occuring substances as "pollution". Man's contribution to carbon in the biosphere is barely measureable. Methane and other so-called greenhouse gas contributions are proportionately so small that they can only be tracked in theoretical models.

Those are the facts, Nix.

I have written thousands of words in this thread giving you the data and the sources, as well as the reasoning for responsible Conservation as the only rational, workable approach to preserving our natural world.

And,of course, we are not going to go away, so deal with it.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I have written thousands of words in this thread giving you the data and the sources, as well as the reasoning<!-/Quote-!>

A recurring theme, and I mirror these sentiments.

I've explained my position quite clearly Nix, and how past data and present trends reflect upon future preditions.

You, however, continue to dwell within the realms of ignorance and miscalculation. You base your own predictions upon nothing more than what you believe to be the case without posting any reasoning whatsoever, or even indicating a single iota of factual foundation for your views.

You've done such a thorough job of making past trends completely unrelated to the present and future that you've worked yourself into a corner; you cannot now pose any facts to support your argument without contradicting your position that the past has no impact upon the future.

Congratulations. And you were so worried that it was I who would make you look the fool.

FarmerBob. That is not an answer. Still you stay on the line 'As nations prosper, concern for the environment will follow in due course.'
Have you not seen, read or been told about the problems the world is having with this economic crisis?
'The modern, industrialized West is how to save the natural world, not a return to the past that destroyed so much of it.'
I'm not saying we should return. I'm saying people should consume less.
I'm also not just talking about the wests impact on the environment. I'm talking about the whole worlds impact. China, Africa, India, Russia ect. Dam the USA would'nt even sign up to the Kyoto protacall because it would hurt the economy. So don't give me all this 'We have been curbing and reducing real pollution for so long and so successfully'. Over all pollution is on the rise from the USA and with the economic crisis it will get alot worse as people stop investing in green technology and keep what they have.
US business is also responsable for more than 1/2 of the worlds pollution and most of it's destruction.
Time for the USA and the world to wake up and realise we can't continue like we have been doing.

But the biggest problem is the rest of the world is doing what we did 150 years ago.

Miles. The facts of mans influence on the planet are there to be seen if you want to see them. The destruction of the rain forests, barren lands due to chemicals, pollution increases from the developing world and no decreases from the developed world, green belts being built on, 10 fold increase of air travel, increase in cattle, increase in household waste, increase in land fill sites and the amount of toxins going to these land fill sites, increase in car emissions, year on year increases of global temp, melting of the ice caps, pollution of the seas and air, destruction of the coral reefs, year on year increase of unusual weather patterns, animals and plants dying out quicker than ever recorded, ect ect ect. But to someone like you until the Natural world is dead you wont believe it.

Any data from the impact of what man did 150 years ago is nothing compaired to what man has been doing over the past 150 years and is still doing. It's up to you whether or not you choose to believe what the scientists, government bodies and environmental groups say or you choose to believe what business says. What I'm saying is that for our future's sake we should'nt take the risk in not believing the worst case scenario just incase it's the right one.
We only have one chance to do what is right.

Nix,

I have a few things to say, so stick with me.

Do you have any idea what the Kyoto protocol would have established? It essentially said; developing nations can not be expected to curb their pollution, but the developed nations should spend billions of dollars to do so. That is one of the dumbest idea's I've ever heard. Developing nations are already the worst polluters per capita, apparently they deserve special treatment because they aren't quite as big as us "developed nations". China signed it happily; It didn't require them to do anything! (not much anyways). It just gave them a nice excuse to pollute even more.

This "economic crisis" is providing you with all of your ammo of late, isn't it? It's a recession Nix, calm down. They happen quite frequently, and, believe it or not, they go away. It's not the end of capitalism, it's not judgement day, it's just something that happens.

Also, do you see the US as some sort of fire belching demon, the very fumes of which destroy the environment? It's starting to seem that way. The US isn't the enemy like you seem to think it is. The anti US attitude is getting annoying. Your glorious Britian isn't the champion of environmental technological development.

FarmerBob has presented one of the best put together arguements I have ever seen. He is clearly extremely knowledgable about these things. Yet, you dismiss everything he says without a second thought. Why? I don't agree with him about global warming being a fictional event, but he takes a very well thought out approach to other aspects that I both respect and agree with.

Also, how will reducing consumption really help conserve our resources. They aren't going anywhere. We aren't jettisoning trees and raw materials into space (not much anyways). It's all still here, no matter what we do with it.

One last thing. Where did you pull the half of the worlds pollution "fact" out of? Your ass? I'm assuming your referring to CO2 emmisions. If so, check out this webpage:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions

Even you can't delude yourself after seeing this data. So quit with the anti american rhetoric and do a bit more research. It would help you more than all the criticism you keep dishing out.

With all due respect,
Ben

Hi Ben.
36.1% of world wide greenhouse emissions produced by the USA.
25% of all carbon dioxide emissions produced by the USA.

USA accounts for only 4.6% of the worlds population.

I have alot of respect for FarmerBob. I just wish he would answer my question.

And I still wish you would post some sources rather than opinion, Nix.

Nature still produces many times the annual greenhouse gasses that humanity does. 30 times I believe, according to a source I posted earlier. So even if the USA is producing 1/3 of all human greenhouse gasses, that is still less than one nintieth of that which nature itself is adding.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It's up to you whether or not you choose to believe what the scientists, government bodies and environmental groups say<!-/Quote-!>

From those three I think I'll stick with scientists, thanks. You stick with political "science" if you like. The fact remains, I posted information from scientifically credible sources. You still posted opinion.

You have a computer. Google it and you will see.
Do you know that theres more to greenhouse gases than just CO2?
Anyway. You wrote one piece about CO2. What about everything else?
The destruction of the rain forests, barren lands due to chemicals, pollution increases from the developing world and no decreases from the developed world, green belts being built on, 10 fold increase of air travel, increase in cattle, increase in household waste, increase in land fill sites and the amount of toxins going to these land fill sites, increase in car emissions, year on year increases of global temp, melting of the ice caps, pollution of the seas and air, destruction of the coral reefs, year on year increase of unusual weather patterns, animals and plants dying out quicker than ever recorded, ect ect ect.

Did you know that trees and soil also locks away CO2?

I will gladly address all of these issues when you post your sources and a brief explanation of how they are applicable to your reasoning.

Yes Nix, I think all of us are aware that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. We are also aware that trees and soil lock away CO2. We wouldn't have been able to comment intelligently in this thread without knowing that.

About the US producing such high levels of greenhouse gases; what's your point? So long as Europe expected/allowed us to manufacture, mine, and harvest so many of your products and raw materials we were bound to pollute more. It's happening with China right now, they are taking our pollution. And, based on geographical area, what percentage of the world's greenhouse gases are produced in Europe? After all, the US has far more infrastructure to maintain than just Britian. Our size geographically requires us to have larger road systems, more sewage/water treatment facilities, etc.

Britain is hardly the bastion of environmental responsibility. Germany and France lead the world in solar power use and development. Denmark leads in wind power. Brazil in biofuels. What does Britian really due to reduce it's impact? It pollutes less because it has less industry and infrastructure, not because the British people are so dedicated to protecting the environment.

Quit convincing yourself that you are some sort of environmental god, and so are all your countrymen. Until you can prove to me that you produce no negative environmental impact, or at least an incredibly negligible one, your argument carries very little weight. Is your home powered by renewable sources? Was it built using environmentally sustainable techniques? Do you eat only food created using environmentally responsible techniques? Does your garden use the most modern and efficient farming methods? Is your sewage broken down and processes to keep it from overdosing the environment on certain nutrients? Is your computer one of the most power efficient you can buy? Do you never use air conditioning or fans so as to keep electrical usage low?

I somewhat doubt you answered yes to all those questions.

I'm not really criticizing you, I'm just saying that if you intend to preach what you do, and criticize me and my country, you damn well better be in a position where you can't be criticized yourself.

I earn just enough to survive. I buy second hand cloths, I recycle everything that I'm allowed too. I only use my 950cc van for work (gardening), I grow some of the food that I need on my alotment. I desire/have no material wealth. Most of what I own has been given to me by people who would have thrown them away. I switch off any light that I'm not using. I don't leave anything on standby. I only use my computer to play this game to get my point about the environment across. I don't use the heating (I just put on an extra jumper).

I know that if I had a woman and children some of what I do would not be possible. But I don't, for the reason that it would not be fair on them. I am sacrificing my desires for the future generations as all men like me should do.

so basically, your a vagrant ^_^

A vagrant! LMFAO omg nix get a house! get a real job pay and off your game debt!

Nix,
Check messages on MNA supply.

Excellent additions, Miles and Master.

One note. Global Climate Change is, of course, quite real. Our climate is in constant flux. Change is the only constant.

Man's infuence? That is the scam. Learn some math.

How much energy would it take to raise the GMT, Global Mean Temperature, by one degree celsius?

How much energy does mankind produce in all its activities?

The answers will astound you.

We couldn't effect the global climate if every human in existence dedicated his entire life to the effort.

Life is tenacious, rapacious, and utterly ruthless. "Fragile" is just about the most inaccurate word one could posibly find to describe our world.

Does that mean we rape and pillage the natural world without regard to the future?

Of course not. We do possess the means to drive some species to extinction. We could fundamentally alter the appearance and composition of the biosphere's eco-diversity.

However, responsible stewardship involves not wasting energy in counterproductive, "feel good" measures that actually require more use of the living spaces around us.

Responsible stewardship means using less of the natural world.
Find our energy in the atom, not our forests and open spaces.
Use our arable land efficiently to wring every calorie possible from every cultivated acre, better wild prairie, than enless miles of corn and wheatfields.
Look up and down, into the sky and the cold, dead ground. Skyscrapers better than sprawling suburbs. Mining and drilling better than cutting and clearing.

We have spent milennia developing the means live extravagantly without having to destroy our natural world. Yet those who claim to champion it cry out for the very methods that would bring its destruction.

Humans are the dominant species on this planet. We will eat, and breed, and live our lives just like every other lifeform. Those who think that salvation lies in some sort of self imposed, slow, collective suicide: "Don't consume. Don't advance. Just sit still and try not to use anything," are welcome to remove themselves from the gene pool. That is the way of death.

I will look to the night sky for our future. We are destined for the stars. The Universe will Let us know in no uncertain terms when we overstep our bounds.

Until that day, we are obligated not to consume less, but to produce more with less. More energy from a tiny mass of fissile material. Not miles of solar panels and wind mills requiring millions of tons of materials and vast quanties of energy to produce and maintain. Build our cities high into the sky, not outward into sprawling suburbs with ridiculous, inefficient gardens and stupid green buckets at the curb, filled with waste products that will consume more energy being transported than required to produce new.

Nature is worth preserving for its own sake. Not Doomsday prognostications.

Very well stated FarmerBob. You basically stated all of my thoughts and opinions. There are wonderful things going on with technology right now. In 50 years I believe we will see the advent of organ printers, fusion power, nanotechnology and all sorts of things that will increase our standard of living by amounts never dreamed about before. Why on earth would you just want to call it quits and stop at this point? I can't find even a speck of my mind that thinks the exact same way as Nix does. I somewhat agree with him on some aspects of the environment, but the whole cut consumption thing just throws me off.

I'm of the opinion that we are nowhere near depleting our resources and likely never will be. There is a whole universe out there, and we're finally taking the baby steps to exploring that vast expanse. I mean, just open your eyes Nix, people are seriously talking about establishing settlements on the moon and mars. Dosen't that invoke a sense of wonder in you? A sense of pride in humanity and what we've accomplished?

@FarmerBob

Although it would would be difficult for humans to raise the global temperature even by miniscule amounts through direct means, the largest nuclear reactor in the solar system could do it for us. I don't really agree with you that all of mankind couldn't cause the temperature to rise even one degree, even if we tried. Lighting every forest on the planet on fire would probably create a noticable effect. Would you dispute that notion? If you do, please don't do it on the premise that the particulate matter created would actually cause global cooling.

And I think you meant "fusable material" not "fissable material" in that seconde to last paragraph.

Ben