Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Just a thought about environment Options · View
DLizze
Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:02:25 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
I was thinking today about planetary environmental change.
(you nay-sayers are welcome to go poke your heads in the sand at any point in this little discussion). We were discussing global warming when I was taking undergraduate courses in Physical Geography and Geomorphology in the early to mid 1970's. The scientific community, even then, was convinced of the validity of measurements showing general warming of the earth. They were also in general agreement the cause of warming was increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. I believed the only viable explanation at that time was ozidation/reduction of carbon-based fuels, but there were still many who thought it possible there might be some other reason. The ensuing argument however, is relevant to my thought only in a kind of ancillary way, since scientists are now generally in agreement that global warming is a direct result of human practices.

So what I was thinking is this:

Dinosaurs ae generally considered to be a "failed life-form". Yet we know from the geologic and palentologic record, they existed on this planet far longer than humans have. We can also state with a fair degree of certainty, they did not cause their own demise. One wonders what will be said of humans, several million years from now? Is the amount of time a species survives the only test of that species sucess? What of the auk, or the dodo, or any number of other species whose extinction is a direct result of human action? We generally consider ourselves a "higher order" than other life forms, yet it seems to me humans may in reality be just another "failed species", and a not particularly long-lived one, at that.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Guest
Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2012 4:34:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
I think we are a failed species in that we don't have the sense to protect our environment to sustain us into the future for future generations. A great many of us say we know what we're doing to the Earth and our atmosphere and yet after beating that drum, go out into the parking lot and get into a Suburban with a Styrofoam cup of coffee in our hands and start texting on the way home on a major highway while putting makeup on and thinking about the hot shower and shampoo we need when we get home.
And for those of you that know that I'm referencing oil usage in more ways than the gas in the SUV, you get a gold star for the day.
I think it was George Carlin that said that humans are like fleas on the back of a dog to the Earth. One day, she's just going to shake us off and something else will take our place. I don't see the Earth as being a burnt out shell of a planet before that happens. We'll die off long before. I live in Florida and a few years ago near where I live we had raging wild fires. Bad burnt out acres of land. It looked like a horror film in many ways. Then, after the fires were out and the smoke all gone, you could see in the middle of the land one then two and more and more green plants growing out of the black char that was left after the fires. Now most if not all of those parts are lush, green and thriving. IMHO that's what's going to happen to our planet after it shakes off the disease that is humanity.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:00:08 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 532,050
I was under the impression that most scientists are in agreement that global warming is caused more by natural occurrences in nature then by manmade emissions. For example; the eruption of the volcano in Iceland a couple of years ago, produced more harmful gasses into the environment in four days (and it kept producing gasses for many weeks), then manmade gasses over the last 30 years.

It is only a small percentage of scientists that disagree and it is those scientists’ views that governments use to justify taxing all modes of transport and scaremongering the public into making meaningless lifestyle changes.
Buz
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:10:46 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,714
Location: Atlanta, United States
Scientists will often skew their findings to favor whoever is footing the bill for their work/research and offers them publishing glory.



1curiouscat
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:39:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
I have over the last ten years of life changed my personal belief many times over this issue. It seems that when I was younger and had more time on my hand (student life), I was a little more connected with nature. for many reasons, I was more in touch with the sentiments that our relationship with nature is not ideal. As I recall, I felt very strongly about this untill a few years after gradutating college and heading out into the "real" world. I began occupying my head with mundane work related issues and financial responsabilities that allow me to keep my lights on and my fridge working and my car running. As the years have gone by, I slowly lost the fighting power to advocate for change.

Today I am still conflicted as to how we need to live. Mainly for one reason - Once I moved back to Brazil I was presented with a reality that, neither I or any of my peers in the US ever had to think about before. Its really easy to challenge your current way of life when you have a roof over your head, blankets to keep you warm, and principally clean water to drink and fresh food to eat. The rational ability to philosophically challenge your current state is a priviledge that the great majority of the masses don´t have.
A conscious shift in the way we treat our planet is going to be extremely dificult to achieve. We discussed this in a previous thread about factory farming - in the end, the great majority of consumers are looking for price. Being environmentally consicous is relatively expensive on every level.

Another interesting comparison is the idea of recycling. When I lived in the states, I remember that recycling program was part of the public structure suported by our taxes. It was organized and responsible. If we did not have our papers seperated from our plastic we could even get fined for it. Here in São Paulo, the most important city in south america mind you, there is no public recycling program. Imagine what its like in cities that have far less stature, I bet the basic trash collection program is faulty at best.

When a government has to manage their time and allocate resources for the creation of basic structure, like canalization of open gutters or protecting human rights, which are necessary for anyone, there will be no chance for that group of individuals to evolve philosophically. In the end, the need for imidiate survival outweights the chance for a better tomorrow.



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
1curiouscat
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:23:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
nazhinaz
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:55:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States

Dinosaurs ae generally considered to be a "failed life-form". Yet we know from the geologic and palentologic record, they existed on this planet far longer than humans have. We can also state with a fair degree of certainty, they did not cause their own demise. One wonders what will be said of humans, several million years from now? Is the amount of time a species survives the only test of that species sucess? What of the auk, or the dodo, or any number of other species whose extinction is a direct result of human action? We generally consider ourselves a "higher order" than other life forms, yet it seems to me humans may in reality be just another "failed species", and a not particularly long-lived one, at that. [/quote]
You very right. The Dinosaurs did not cause their own demise; at least according to the present level of knowledge we have.
Humans are not a "higher order". They are just one other species. A different species from many of the rest and from all those known to us till now.
The difference is the "BRAIN". I am not talking about the correlation of body and brain; the utilization of it.
Humans use their brains in inventive and creative manner.
Its not the memory part of the brain, but the connectivity of memory to transform the memory into inventive process.
Thus brings in the creativity.
And yes, the humans may last as long as this world does; say about 6 billion years according to the present calculations; if and a big if, we do not cause our own demise somehow.
Over 15,000 nuclear destructive bombs stockpile all over the World, if triggered by some accident, may be the cause of demise of human race.
If we do not take corrective measures and that too soon, the environment may not be able to sustain the human race.
And there could be many more issues, some known and some may challenge the human race later, centuries or millions of years later, if we let our the human race continue to progress and keep using our brains more and more creatively.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:32:13 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,282
Location: Cakeland, United States
Some of these people are using their collective brain power creatively (for the betterment of our planetary environment).

Would still like to read what the end result will be of all that spent fly ash though.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
nazhinaz
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:53:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
Some of these people are using their collective brain power creatively (for the betterment of our planetary environment).

Would still like to read what the end result will be of all that spent fly ash though.


Yep, using their collective brain power creatively, but only some.
Still a large number of human resources are diverted to maintain the huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, while almost the huge African continent still starving, not getting drinkable water, nor many have education and human rights.
Still countries like Iran are trying to make neuclear weapons. Still North Korea keeping its population starving and going for atomic weapons.
Still USA persuing a useless fight in Afghanistan spending about $ 130 billons every year.
And not enough money for environmental uplifting.
If one thinks we as human race are doing enough, I believe we are trying to sink our heads in sand.
We need to emacipate people who do not have enough education, food and rights and provide awareness of the possible effects of fast degrading environment for our posterity.
We need to be FOCUSED COLLECTIVELY about environment, which sadly we are not yet.
And the spent ash was bad, surely bad; but we had no control over it.
But we must take decisions where we can be effective.
I am glad that European Union has introduced Carbon tax for emitting carbon beyond limits.
Other nations too should come forth with such positive attitude towards environment.
NudistRob
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 6:17:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2010
Posts: 94
There is no such thing as global warming. As I read the supporting statements to the question it became clear. The person asking learned all his misinformation in college. Now in the face of a massive nuclear meltdown at Fukashima estimated to make the entire northern hemisphere unlivable, I can't see why anybody can even bother worrying about their carbon footprint. All that crap was designed by the IMF and the UN to create worldwide tax structures to keep people enslaved to there bankster masters. It is all a bunch of lies. People think far to highly of themselves. Did you know that the entire earths population can fit into the state of Texas? True! When God decides the entire show is over, He will let us know. And ALL knees will bow!
NudistRob
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 6:24:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2010
Posts: 94
nazhinaz wrote:


Yep, using their collective brain power creatively, but only some.
Still a large number of human resources are diverted to maintain the huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, while almost the huge African continent still starving, not getting drinkable water, nor many have education and human rights.
Still countries like Iran are trying to make neuclear weapons. Still North Korea keeping its population starving and going for atomic weapons.
Still USA persuing a useless fight in Afghanistan spending about $ 130 billons every year.
And not enough money for environmental uplifting.
If one thinks we as human race are doing enough, I believe we are trying to sink our heads in sand.
We need to emacipate people who do not have enough education, food and rights and provide awareness of the possible effects of fast degrading environment for our posterity.
We need to be FOCUSED COLLECTIVELY about environment, which sadly we are not yet.
And the spent ash was bad, surely bad; but we had no control over it.
But we must take decisions where we can be effective.
I am glad that European Union has introduced Carbon tax for emitting carbon beyond limits.
Other nations too should come forth with such positive attitude towards environment.

May I ask how demanding people pay using fake imaginary fiat currency will in any way help the Earth? While you buy fake silly carbon coupons China uses slaves to mass produce crap that US comsumers cant get enough of. Money (fiat) is not the answer to anything. It is enslaving all of mankind. Why doen't Africa have food and water = MONEY. Why was Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Eygpt, and now North Korea attacked = MONEY. Yes, we are now in North Korea using free energy technology and currently occupy several countries in Africa (AFRACOM). Carbon and green issues are just another way to distract the sheeple masses from the truth. Just keep going to college and watching Dancing with the Idiots and you will be just fine. And make sure your credit cards payments are on time!

Meanwhile free energy was developed about 100 years ago making ALL nuclear and coal power plants useless. However all patents created by Nicolia Tesla are held by JP MORGAN and the US Military (700). Special Ops troops have been sent into North Korea to spy on underground tunnel system. They have full array of electronics, but no power sources such as batteries. They can maintain possitions indefinately just like our drones can do. You will never see this because as JP MORGAN once said, "How will I be able to meter this?" MONEY!!!!
LadyX
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:41:00 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
NudistRob wrote:
Now in the face of a massive nuclear meltdown at Fukashima estimated to make the entire northern hemisphere unlivable,


source, please.
DLizze
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:59:59 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
NUdist rob said. "There is no such thing as global warming."

The statement ignores all current and historic climatalogic data.

However, the question of global warnming was not the original question. The original question was, what defines a successful life form?

I must admit, when I posited it, I didn't expect that EVERYONE would understand what I was asking.

In the past couple of days, I have been revisiting this question in my mind. It occurs to me the destruction of our home planet does not necessarily spell our demise as a species. I believe it was Arthur Clarke who said that if the human species survives half as long as the dinosaurs did, except for a very short period in ancient history, the word "ship" will mean a space vehicle. (That is not intended to be a drect quote, but I believe it is a reasonable paraphrae) Admittedly, at our current stage of technology, interplanetary travel is impractical. But I suspect in the not too distant future, we will figure out exactly what is the nature of gravity, and how it falls within what we call "the spectrum". Once that is established, and once we have learned to control gravity to our use, space travel will beome possible. I suspect also, at about the same time, we will discover that the speed of light is not a universal. That is to say, not only does its speed vary, but 299,792,458 metres per second is also not the maximum speed of objects in the universe.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
nazhinaz
Posted: Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:29:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
DLizze wrote:
NUdist rob said. "There is no such thing as global warming."

The statement ignores all current and historic climatalogic data.

However, the question of global warnming was not the original question. The original question was, what defines a successful life form?

I must admit, when I posited it, I didn't expect that EVERYONE would understand what I was asking.

In the past couple of days, I have been revisiting this question in my mind. It occurs to me the destruction of our home planet does not necessarily spell our demise as a species. I believe it was Arthur Clarke who said that if the human species survives half as long as the dinosaurs did, except for a very short period in ancient history, the word "ship" will mean a space vehicle. (That is not intended to be a drect quote, but I believe it is a reasonable paraphrae) Admittedly, at our current stage of technology, interplanetary travel is impractical. But I suspect in the not too distant future, we will figure out exactly what is the nature of gravity, and how it falls within what we call "the spectrum". Once that is established, and once we have learned to control gravity to our use, space travel will beome possible. I suspect also, at about the same time, we will discover that the speed of light is not a universal. That is to say, not only does its speed vary, but 299,792,458 metres per second is also not the maximum speed of objects in the universe.


For sure mankind does not have historical date as data collection startedd about 2 cneturies ago when researching methodologies began to surface.
Yes, mankind may soon, say in a century or so, starts inter plenetary voyages. But even if we do find another hospitable environment at any planet, does it mean we should let the World go down the drain? After all World has been our home for millions of years and for sure we can address the encironmental issues and global warming.
May I just invite attention that the recorded data of say about a century indicates that the average temperature has gone up during the last 100 years or so.
The fast deforstation is also driving this World to down the drain as less and less of Carbon dioxide is absorbed with fewer plantation aroung.
If we do plan to have kids, so as to maintain a balance in our family and do keep our homes tidy and good looking, we sure can plan to have population of the World beyond going burst and can and should keep our collective home, WORLD, tidy and good.
Only we need an appropriate will and focus.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:41:24 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,282
Location: Cakeland, United States
DLizze wrote:
I must admit, when I posited it, I didn't expect that EVERYONE would understand what I was asking.

In the past couple of days, I have been revisiting this question in my mind. It occurs to me the destruction of our home planet does not necessarily spell our demise as a species. I believe it was Arthur Clarke who said that if the human species survives half as long as the dinosaurs did, except for a very short period in ancient history, the word "ship" will mean a space vehicle. (That is not intended to be a drect quote, but I believe it is a reasonable paraphrae) Admittedly, at our current stage of technology, interplanetary travel is impractical. But I suspect in the not too distant future, we will figure out exactly what is the nature of gravity, and how it falls within what we call "the spectrum". Once that is established, and once we have learned to control gravity to our use, space travel will beome possible. I suspect also, at about the same time, we will discover that the speed of light is not a universal. That is to say, not only does its speed vary, but 299,792,458 metres per second is also not the maximum speed of objects in the universe.


Perhaps you spotted that quote from Mr. Clarke which I had been using for a few weeks, recently...as my sig line.

I think if our species can extend ourselves into a Type II civilization - humanity could be considered successful.

Some people on this planet now (self included) believe that there already exists such a breakaway civilization operating off planet. There is enough tantalizing evidence (if you know where to look) which suggests this to be true.

Most of us, the vast majority of us humans are so preoccupied with the mere day to day battle for survival and plotting our own future year, decade or the vaunted 'retirement years' that we don't have the time to devote to looking at what else might already be going on around us.

A lot of what Nudist Rob has been typing the last few months is spot-on. I don't really agree with the method of jumping atop a soap box and screaming it towards an otherwise non-interested audience, but that's his technique, not mine. A person has to be ready to investigate and accept information which goes against everything he or she has been taught by those we have always considered to be trustworthy authority figures. We are indoctrinated from the day we are born (most of us anyway) to take it for granted, what authority figures feed us.

The fiat currency scam is real. That is no joke. There are families of people on this planet who are so wealthy and have been in 'power' with that wealth for so long, that they long ago - no longer had the worries or concerns of the other 99.9999% of the people on this planet. I've read estimates of up to 10,000 people (those belonging to families so powerful and wealthy - most of us would never know them nor miss them if they disappeared off this planet - and I'm not talking about people we 'know' like the royalty of Great Britain - those people are not wealthy).

The 'money' to create the Type II Breakaway Civilization has been stolen from the rest of mankind via the Fiat Banking scam. They aren't just hoarding it (although they are doing some of that too).

And what about free energy? If all of mankind had access to free energy instead of just the breakaway civilization, petroleum and other carbon mineral based (coal/methane - all the nasty polluting shit) would go back to being non-important crap to avoid.

This planet is not supposed to be 100% totally paradise - not according to those who are in control of all the technologies which could transform the entire world and even support a healthy human population of 100 billion humans.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens will go off planet and establish colonies amongst the stars. As I said, I think it is happening now. The clues are just too many. 'They' already have FTL transportation.

NASA is a front organization created to keep us amused (although it became boring to most of mankind, back in the mid 1970s). There has been operating in the shadows, a far advanced (technologically) military based space exploration program, since the early-mid 1950s. That evidence is all over the place too.

UFOs? Most of them belong to mankind. 'We' can do things that fool our eyes and senses. We are the gods (lowercase G).

Do you think SDI R&D was ever dropped or ceased. And do you think it was ever about creating an anti-ballistic missile shield to protect NATO from the evil Soviets? lmao... The evil Soviets were our partners in its design and employment. And make no mistake, it is employed above our heads and has been for over 30 years.

Oh well, what the hell, most of us are too preoccupied with where we are going to find our next morsels to eat, or piece of ass to fuck to care about anything farther out than about 2 weeks in front of our noses.

That's what this system was designed to do - enslave us and give us just enough 'reward' to keep us under control and blind.

It works!



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:39:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 541
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
Nuclear power scares us all, but how are we to provide power to the world as long as poor underdeveloped third world countries keep multiplying their populations at an out of control rate? Solar power can't supply that, it's technologically impossible.

What about all the coal plants in China? Talk about some massive pollution!!!!
WhatDoYouThink
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:34:15 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/15/2012
Posts: 16
Location: United States
Well why do we have to use coal?
Why can't we use solar or wind or water power? Sure it'll cost a lot of money but in the end won't it be better?
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:32:53 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,308
Location: United States
WhatDoYouThink wrote:
Well why do we have to use coal?
Why can't we use solar or wind or water power? Sure it'll cost a lot of money but in the end won't it be better?


Getting financing for new energy technologies is the problem. You didn't mention nuclear power, but that probably has the best chance of getting funded. Coal has historically been cheap. Electric companies, for the most part, want to make a profit. All parts of the country don't get enough wind for wind power, and there are areas without enough water for hydroelectric plants. Coal can be transported to anywhere. The same is not true of wind and water.

There is a hydroelectric plant near where I live. To make it work a river had to be dammed up. Damming rivers has an affect on the environment too. Erecting the number of windmills that would be necessary to provide power for the U.S.A. would have to have some sort of effect as well. There is a danger of meltdowns and radiation in nuclear power plants.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to make things that use less energy, or use energy more cleanly. There is a possibility that coal, oil and natural gas reserves will run out, or become so scarce and hard to recover that the cost of recovering them isn't profitable anymore. Cars that could get 100 mpg would be four times cheaper to drive than one getting 25. Electric devices that used less electricity would be cheaper to use too.

As long as people think that making money is more important than protecting the environment, things are going to get worse. The wheels of government run on money, and the money is provided by the people who make the profits.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.