Enviormental Protection

[Mecharic]

I don't know if this has been put up already, but if so it would be necro-posting to revive such a thread. So here's a new thread about the environment. I'll kick this off...

Does the environment need protection from human activities?

Yes, I believe that the environment needs to be protected from human activities and interference. I believe this because in the 10 thousand years since human civilization began to kick off the planet has seen more change, movement of life, and extinction of life than any event since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. In more modern times since the Industrial Revolution roughly 180 years ago, the planet has experienced vast amounts of change that not even humans have been able to properly keep up with. The climate has been growing warmer on a global scale (fact), the rainforests have been logged beyond what is sustainable (fact), overhunting has wiped out several species an pushed many to the edge of extinction (fact), the oceans have become depleted of marine life (fact), and urban sprawl has spread out to cover vast parts of what was once pristine wilderness (fact).

I feel that not only is it a species imperative for humanity to protect our environment (we can't exist without it) but that it is also our duty as the only civilization-building species on the planet. There is no one else to protect the environment, to prevent mass extinctions and global devastation. By default of being the only ones able to protect the environment we have the duty to do so. And if it prevents humanity from going extinct, well, all the better to have a reward for our actions.

What I believe needs to be done is fairly simple: population growth in humans needs to be limited, either by government or by society as a whole. After the population has decreased a little, to around 6 billion globally, it will be possible to make the economy more efficient and fossil fuel outputs could be limited. But the single most important thing I think needs to be changed is the thought that growth is the only sign of success. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." - Edward Abbey. So long as humans act like a cancer to the planet, nothing will survive the destruction we will unleash.



So, what do you think?

 

[Mecharic]

Can a staff member edit the poll to say "If a species can't adapt fast enough they deserve to die out." please? -_-

 

[FCCarnilord]

Natural selection.
Unless an animal is crucial to the world that is having trouble adapting, then we should intervene as try our best to save that species. I mean, our population can be huge, but there is still vast amounts of wilderness we won't even touch.
Also, God or not, we're the most capable species technologically on the planet. We need to watch out for ourselves, because God allows us to choose. Therefore, we must choose to do what is right, and keep some type of environmental protection for the sake of the planet. We keep animals from us, why can't they keep us from them? Because most of us are selfish people who legitimately can't care, 1 animal dies, we don't cry for days, because one just died right now.
However, we must keep care for our own species. We were naturally capable in creating of technology, we are one of the top species. Should we limit population? No, I know we should not, because all we will be doing is giving ourselves just a miniscule amount more space, and know a few less people.

Addon- Some people think that God is going to do everything himself. Well, it's not true, because if he did everything himself, nothing in this universe would be unique. We do things on our own to make it special, as he watches, anticipating that we choose wisely, because he knows it wouldn't be a free universe. It would be solely his, with it lasting forever with a much more superior standing. Hence, why we should embrace the meek and powerless, because they are the ones who make us so unique.

 

[Mecharic]

@Toxiclord - I just want to debate a few points here...

1) I also believe in natural selection - to a degree. The issue I have with it is that natural selection would, at this point, reduce the planet to humans and maybe 50 or so other exceptionally human-suited species (pigeons & cats come to mind). What do you think about leaving chunks of land aside for wildlife to exist?
2) The reason I think limiting population would work is a, we already have 7 billion people on earth, we can't support more than 10 billion with our current tech, and b, we need to leave space for other species to exist or else it'll be a planet with only humans on board. Do you disagree, or just have a different thought on it?

 

[FCCarnilord]

@Toxiclord - I just want to debate a few points here...

1) I also believe in natural selection - to a degree. The issue I have with it is that natural selection would, at this point, reduce the planet to humans and maybe 50 or so other exceptionally human-suited species (pigeons & cats come to mind). What do you think about leaving chunks of land aside for wildlife to exist?
2) The reason I think limiting population would work is a, we already have 7 billion people on earth, we can't support more than 10 billion with our current tech, and b, we need to leave space for other species to exist or else it'll be a planet with only humans on board. Do you disagree, or just have a different thought on it?

Click to shrink...

Response 1- Natural selection will take place whither or not we decide, so essentially no matter what, species will die out. HOWEVER, we are disrupting it with farm raised species, so they will most definitely live longer. Yes, Chunks of land should be left for wildlife to exist.
Response 2- We have 7 billion people on Earth, after hundreds of thousands of years. I'm sure we won't hit 10 billion for a long time. Also, China is comprised of (what I heard) 3/4 adults. This means in time, the population of China itself with impact our growth because so many may die in a specific time.
Also, our technology is advancing fast, I rest assured we will be fine in future years. I disagree to human population limits.
Start with Commodore 64, few years later, middle with prosthetics that react to our brain waves. We'll get There. And if people are doubtful, we'll be dead soon anyway, so it won't matter to us.

 

[Mecharic]

Response 1- Natural selection will take place whither or not we decide, so essentially no matter what, species will die out. HOWEVER, we are disrupting it with farm raised species, so they will most definitely live longer. Yes, Chunks of land should be left for wildlife to exist.
Response 2- We have 7 billion people on Earth, after hundreds of thousands of years. I'm sure we won't hit 10 billion for a long time. Also, China is comprised of (what I heard) 3/4 adults. This means in time, the population of China itself with impact our growth because so many may die in a specific time.
Also, our technology is advancing fast, I rest assured we will be fine in future years. I disagree to human population limits.
Start with Commodore 64, few years later, middle with prosthetics that react to our brain waves. We'll get There. And if people are doubtful, we'll be dead soon anyway, so it won't matter to us.

Click to shrink...

1) Oh cool.

2) Actually... the human population grew at a steady rate up until the Industrial Revolution and later the advent of mass agriculture, after those occurred the population exploded from 1 billion to 7 billion - in abut 200 years, as compared to 0 to 1 billion over all of human history up until the 1800s. That said, it is theorized that humans will not actually reach 10 billion at our current technological and biological level. Also, remember that China had to implement a 1-child policy in order to get their population under control, so it makes sense that such would be the case elsewhere too, right?

"We'll be dead soon anyway" is without a doubt the most depressing statement I've heard too many times in these sorts of debates. Don't you care about your children (or children to be)? Or your friends who may outlive you? Siblings? Cousins? Your cats' great grandkids?

 

[TheBolshevik]

If we don't offer environmental protection for animal species, we ultimately risk tipping the 'ecological balance' out of order and causing huge knock-on effects within our own agricultural industry.

 

[FCCarnilord]

1) Oh cool.

2) Actually... the human population grew at a steady rate up until the Industrial Revolution and later the advent of mass agriculture, after those occurred the population exploded from 1 billion to 7 billion - in abut 200 years, as compared to 0 to 1 billion over all of human history up until the 1800s. That said, it is theorized that humans will not actually reach 10 billion at our current technological and biological level. Also, remember that China had to implement a 1-child policy in order to get their population under control, so it makes sense that such would be the case elsewhere too, right?

"We'll be dead soon anyway" is without a doubt the most depressing statement I've heard too many times in these sorts of debates. Don't you care about your children (or children to be)? Or your friends who may outlive you? Siblings? Cousins? Your cats' great grandkids?

Click to shrink...

When I say "We'll be dead soon anyway", it's the fact that people think that we'll be able to make a difference large enough to balance the Earth within a lifetime.

We'll get There. And if people are doubtful, we'll be dead soon anyway, so it won't matter to us.

Click to shrink...

Because I know it's going to happen and it's very crucial something is done. It doesn't mean I'm going to go and buy oil and spill it in an ocean or anything bad (And yes, it very much looks like it's me saying a depressing, lazy thing), it's just any change WE make will not effect our lifetime as much as others. Hence, if you're doubtful that it will change very much, we will be dead by the time any type of change is made, which is my assumption because of the state we live in and such a society that says these kinds of things and decides that we shouldn't do anything. I do things that are green, because yea the planet isn't going to live at this rate at all.
It's not for our generation, it's for the next.

I actually meant something different, it's just the way I had lacked some pertinent words I looked like a lazy planet killer.

 

[Mecharic]

When I say "We'll be dead soon anyway", it's the fact that people think that we'll be able to make a difference large enough to balance the Earth within a lifetime.
Because I know it's going to happen and it's very crucial something is done. It doesn't mean I'm going to go and buy oil and spill it in an ocean or anything bad (And yes, it very much looks like it's me saying a depressing, lazy thing), it's just any change WE make will not effect our lifetime as much as others. Hence, if you're doubtful that it will change very much, we will be dead by the time any type of change is made, which is my assumption because of the state we live in and such a society that says these kinds of things and decides that we shouldn't do anything. I do things that are green, because yea the planet isn't going to live at this rate at all.
It's not for our generation, it's for the next.

I actually meant something different, it's just the way I had lacked some pertinent words I looked like a lazy planet killer.

Click to shrink...

Oh now that sounds much better xD

 

[FCCarnilord]

Oh now that sounds much better xD

Click to shrink...

I nearly doomed myself to life in hell with the wildlife.

 

[BulbousDevourer]

Taking care of the wilderness and the animals in it is important. They're the reason the human race is even alive. I don't agree with people who think humans are equal to animals, though, and that you're a horrible person for eating a deer you just shot or something.

 

[krios41]

1 i hate it that massivecraft isn't realy life becouse then we could just do /fix full and everything would be alright again
2 i'm not gonna say my opinion on population controll because i'm not sure were i stand on that, what i do know however is that when there are to much people on earth this will solve it'self in the only way it can solve it'self. it's a very very dark thing to say that we need wars to reduce/slow down population, but if you think of it, it may be the least pleasant way of doing it but it does work, i can only imagine the numbers if teh first and the second world war never happend (mind i'm not suporting wars mkay? i hate them as much as you do)
3 naaaaaaaatttuuuuuuuuuuurrreeeeeeeee, gotta love it of course we should do everything to safe as much as possible, but sadly i believe we already F* it up so badly that it is beyond repair, call me a pessimist, i am one
4 i think i forgot something here
5 to evryone who thinks the enviriment isn't in danger, you.are.blind.
6 amma quoting my teacher here "we, humans, should've never existed, we have the power to safe nature but we choose not to do it bacouse, we, humans, are selfish"

that about it (rly point 2 is difficult to explain correctly, and i fear my point didn't get across there)

 

[Mecharic]

@krios41 - On the war = population control, I fully agree. As resources become tighter (as happens in an overpopulated world) people become more aggressive, causing wars to spread and thus lowering the population and allowing individuals to take more resources. It's not pretty, not efficient, and not morally correct, but little in nature manages to be all of those at once.

 

[Laach]

@krios41 - On the war = population control, I fully agree. As resources become tighter (as happens in an overpopulated world) people become more aggressive, causing wars to spread and thus lowering the population and allowing individuals to take more resources. It's not pretty, not efficient, and not morally correct, but little in nature manages to be all of those at once.

Click to shrink...

Why can't we all be plants for once?

 

[Waminer]

@Toxiclord
2) The reason I think limiting population would work is a, we already have 7 billion people on earth

Click to shrink...

I saw report thing a while back that debated that there can be 48 billion humans sustained on planet Earth using basically all renewable resources and nuclear power (Minerals are not really renewable, and Asteroid mining is a while off however there would still be enough for a fairly long time). This includes *not* using all of the wasted space that is the Oceans, most places in deserts, tundra, ect. and all of the space needed for regrowing forests for lumber, permanent forests for oxygen and other spaces for recreation (Supplemented by large controlled Green Algae growths). The world average income would be the equivalent of 30 000 USD which considering how 85% of the world makes a less than a forth of that a year, is pretty good.

Obviously this would require huge planning and organization and be nearly impossible with all the strife in the world today. But it is important to remember that the cause of environmental damage is how we are making the things w live with. Not the fact we are living.

Edit: *not*

 

[Mecharic]

Why can't we all be plants for once?

Click to shrink...

Oh come now, plants are extremely aggressive! Their wars are just so slow most people don't see them, but think this: if you were a plant you wouldn't be shot, you'd be smothered by a faster growing or larger plant. Namely, cactus - they can survive pretty much anywhere on earth, but because they have a weak root system even plants like grass can snuff them out. So they're forced to live in deserts where most plants can't get the water needed to grow.

I saw report thing a while back that debated that there can be 48 billion humans sustained on planet Earth using basically all renewable resources and nuclear power (Minerals are not really renewable, and Asteroid mining is a while off however there would still be enough for a fairly long time). This includes all of the wasted space that is the Oceans, most places in deserts, tundra, ect. and all of the space needed for regrowing forests for lumber, permanent forests for oxygen and other spaces for recreation (Supplemented by large controlled Green Algae growths). The world average income would be the equivalent of 30 000 USD which considering how 85% of the world makes a less than a forth of that a year, is pretty good.

Obviously this would require huge planning and organization and be nearly impossible with all the strife in the world today. But it is important to remember that the cause of environmental damage is how we are making the things w live with. Not the fact we are living.

Click to shrink...

The 10 billion max is using all currently farmable land on earth. While that, ah, report may well be correct it is assuming a lot - and not just that we can work together well enough to make it happen. It assumes we can control the climate enough to warm the arctic and antarctic to farming-level temps, and that we can direct sunlight to them to grow plants. It assumes that the oceans are "wasted space" and that we can control the climate and global weather patterns with them as a factor. While these are theoretically possible, it won't happen within the next 200 years unless we get help from an extra-terrestrial species. It would be more efficient and cost-effective to colonize and terraform mars, as well as the asteroid belt, than it would to terraform earth into a planet of absolute 100% efficiency for humans.

Not to say that the idea isn't cool, just not very realistic lol

 

[Waminer]

The 10 billion max is using all currently farmable land on earth. While that, ah, report may well be correct it is assuming a lot - and not just that we can work together well enough to make it happen. It assumes we can control the climate enough to warm the arctic and antarctic to farming-level temps, and that we can direct sunlight to them to grow plants. It assumes that the oceans are "wasted space" and that we can control the climate and global weather patterns with them as a factor. While these are theoretically possible, it won't happen within the next 200 years unless we get help from an extra-terrestrial species. It would be more efficient and cost-effective to colonize and terraform mars, as well as the asteroid belt, than it would to terraform earth into a planet of absolute 100% efficiency for humans.

Not to say that the idea isn't cool, just not very realistic lol

Click to shrink...

Yep 100% it is not possible today even if it is possible with today's technologies. I just posted it to remind people that it is indeed theoretically possible to support many, many humans with today's technology, despite many people say about numbers like 2 billion or 3 billion as the max limit. Also, off topic but about the mars thing, there is an awfully good book called "The Case for Mars" anyone interested in the subject of population, agriculture or space should read.