Does it matter when the world ends?

[swivel]

But before humans had technology there was NO pollution anywhere. Now , with technology, humans have been polluting the Earth everywhere for pollution can travel on the wind for thousands of miles or be dispersed in the oceans all around the world. The reefs are dying still, 50 percent are already dead and more are dying daily. Pollution from China, India America is still at over 60 billion tons per year that spews into the atmosphere. Another 50 billion tons of raw sewage spews into the oceans as well yearly and you think we are actually cleaning things up...???? I really don't think you have researched your findings about pollution at all for it seems you are ill informed about what is really happening as opposed to what you would like to have happen.

Uhhh.. that 60 billion tons of "Pollution" is the same shit that comes out of volcanoes. We contribute, what, 2-3% of this "Pollution"?

You are out of your mind. What is the difference between a tanker spilling oil on a beach and a fissure in the Earth gushing oil out into the environment naturally? Do you see Yellowstone as a sulfur-spewing man-made factory or as a wonder of nature?

Study up on the history of the Hudson river and Boston harbor if you want to see our progress. Look at the crap the USSR was doing 50 years ago. Look at the deforestation of Easter Island hundreds of years ago, and the similar decimation to forests in Britain and Europe. It was back in 1350 that England began having a problem, and by the 1500's all of Europe was hurting for trees.

In the 19th century man didn't care about extinction at all. The moral culture promoted hunting down the last creature, killing it, stuffing it, and putting it on display for the general public. This was our moral sense of the day. Go back further and natives used to drive entire herds off of cliffs and then take a fraction of the meat while the rest spoiled. It keeps getting worse and worse the further back you go.

Did you know that we now have the technology OPERATING which eats up landfills and turns them into clean energy? Technology makes things better and brighter for all!

 

[Enmos]

I never said "crack".

You did mention meteor impacts though

You imply with your posts that we are a cancer, which is an analogy for something that kills an organism. We can not possibly make the Earth uninhabitable for other life. Not even if we devoted every ounce of our energy to that outcome.

I never implied that at all.. I said it straight out
Also, I didn't mean to suggest that humans are going to completely rid the world of life (I may have exaggerated that bit), but they are perfectly capable of completely destroying most life. Just look at the world today.. and it's only going to get worse with each passing day. I truly hope I'm wrong though..

You grant humans special status in making them an abomination. I grant them special status for gaining awareness of their place in the universe and for creating wonderful art. We are both making the mistake of granting the species too much credit, but I wonder which of us is doing so for good an decent reasons and which of us is being a Negative Nancy...

lol
Well, I also acknowledge humans for their good sides, such as the things you mentioned. But that still doesn't take away all the shitty stuff..

 

[swivel]

I never implied that at all.. I said it straight out
Also, I didn't mean to suggest that humans are going to completely rid the world of life (I may have exaggerated that bit), but they are perfectly capable of completely destroying most life. Just look at the world today.. and it's only going to get worse with each passing day. I truly hope I'm wrong though..

You can't just look around, you have to also look over your shoulder and look to the horizon. When you do this you will see a positive trend, not the mud at your feet.

History should be our guide, not the most pessimistic fears that modern Jeremiads can summon.

 

[Enmos]

You can't just look around, you have to also look over your shoulder and look to the horizon. When you do this you will see a positive trend, not the mud at your feet.

History should be our guide, not the most pessimistic fears that modern Jeremiads can summon.

Huh.. ? History doesn't exactly paint a happy picture..
Anyway.. I don't think I'm that pessimistic. Maybe you are just overly optimistic.
Realists often get accused of being pessimistic.

 

[swivel]

Realists often get accused of being pessimistic.

Realists often get accused of being optimistic. Depends on the bias of the accuser.

I am refreshed to hear you moderate some of your most troubling stances, such as the call for an end to all human life. I'm even more surprised to hear you admit that humans are capable of some good.

I'm wondering... do you not think the good being produced today outweighs the bad? If not, do you not see that the historic trend is for this ratio to become a positive one? And if not is your primary complaint about humans that there is just "too many" of us?

If so, what is the correct number? Have you ever flown across the United States and seen how empty the Earth is? Do you ever think about the fact that we only want to occupy at most 25% of the Earth's surface?

Does it sadden you to think of there being too many mice? Or too many snakes? Or too much bacterium? What about all the damn cows? Did you know that they contribute more to greenhouse gases than our vehicles do?

Is it okay when the whales swallow millions of krill but bad when we fish for tuna? Why?

In what way are we most harming the planet today? What are we doing right now that will leave its mark 1,000 years from now, 1 million years from now, 1 billion years from now?

I sincerely ask these questions because I have respect for your opinions in other threads and can not wrap my brain around some of the things you say elsewhere. I look forward to your responses.

 

[Enmos]

Realists often get accused of being optimistic. Depends on the bias of the accuser.

Not nearly as much as the other way around.

I am refreshed to hear you moderate some of your most troubling stances, such as the call for an end to all human life. I'm even more surprised to hear you admit that humans are capable of some good.

I think you jumped in too early if you are surprised at that
I never seriously called for an end to humanity, not that I hide that I wouldn't object.

I'm wondering... do you not think the good being produced today outweighs the bad?

According to what standards ? For me personally the answer is obviously no.

If not, do you not see that the historic trend is for this ratio to become a positive one?

Again, according to what standards ?

And if not is your primary complaint about humans that there is just "too many" of us?

That IS my primary point, not my only point.

If so, what is the correct number? Have you ever flown across the United States and seen how empty the Earth is? Do you ever think about the fact that we only want to occupy at most 25% of the Earth's surface?

Only 25% ?? Are you serious ?
Besides, it not about what area we cover it's how much we affect other life on this planet.

Does it sadden you to think of there being too many mice? Or too many snakes? Or too much bacterium?

Not as long as humans didn't have anything to do with it. Nature solves these things itself, but humans seem to be cheating this process.

What about all the damn cows? Did you know that they contribute more to greenhouse gases than our vehicles do?

Yes, I do know that. The number of cows is that high because of humans.

Is it okay when the whales swallow millions of krill but bad when we fish for tuna? Why?

Why ? Because we are disrupting complete, sometimes quite delicate, ecosystems by overfishing and similar activities.
The ecosystems are in balance until humans start digging in.

In what way are we most harming the planet today? What are we doing right now that will leave its mark 1,000 years from now, 1 million years from now, 1 billion years from now?

Nuclear waste, destruction of ecosystems by means of overfishing/hunting, or toxins. Sometimes conditions are created that allow one particular species to thrive and ransack it's own ecosystem.
I could also mention my serial killer analogy again..

I sincerely ask these questions because I have respect for your opinions in other threads and can not wrap my brain around some of the things you say elsewhere. I look forward to your responses.

Thanks Swiv, I respect your opinion too.
Seeing your interest in the objective/subjective discussions you seem overly protective of humanity.

 

[swivel]

Seeing your interest in the objective/subjective discussions you seem overly protective of humanity.

I'm into whatever isn't cool at the time. I had long hair when everyone else was spiking it and spiked mine while everyone was growing it out. I wore ties to class while I was in college.

Here's the thing: I'm uncommonly good-looking. Like painfully so. It makes me really scared of being popular, so I do whatever the un-cool kids are doing. That's why I'm 33 and I read a lot of comics and play with action figures.


I find it fascinating that you think nature is "in balance". What I see in nature is a balance achieved because of a mutually-antagonistic desire to drive everything else out of its ecological niche. That is, the "balance" is really an ongoing dynamic of each organism trying to make all competitors go extinct. Which is why we rarely (never, even?) find direct competitors for resources living in the same niche.

I saw a fascinating study once about these proteins converted compound A into compound B. A slight mutation in the protein would affect the efficiency of this process up or down. Immediately the better mutation would take over completely, leaving no room for the other protein. Even with a single-digit percentage increase in efficiency was enough to drive the other protein to "extinction". Such is the way of nature.

But that is not our way. Not anymore. My wife and I aren't having kids. Know why? Because we both see the tapering of human population growth as a positive trend. It is an incredibly powerful biological force that we have overcome, one that has had millions of years to work its magic on our entire beings, and we wave it away (in non-free-will parlance: the desire to procreate was a weaker stimuli than the social and environmental pressures of too many humans).

This is why I have, in the recent past, pointing to your disgust and pessimism as proof that they are invalid (how meta is that?). The fact that more and more humans are choosing to not eat meat (even though it tastes good and is good for us), are consuming less, are changing their driving habits, are taking an interest in other species, are going "green"... the entire movement invalidates the pessimism we see in its most dour members!

We should all clamor for more progress, but denying it as it happens is a recipe for bitterness and depression. Not a healthy recruiting method.

 

[Enmos]

I'm into whatever isn't cool at the time. I had long hair when everyone else was spiking it and spiked mine while everyone was growing it out. I wore ties to class while I was in college.

Here's the thing: I'm uncommonly good-looking. Like painfully so. It makes me really scared of being popular, so I do whatever the un-cool kids are doing. That's why I'm 33 and I read a lot of comics and play with action figures.


I find it fascinating that you think nature is "in balance". What I see in nature is a balance achieved because of a mutually-antagonistic desire to drive everything else out of its ecological niche. That is, the "balance" is really an ongoing dynamic of each organism trying to make all competitors go extinct. Which is why we rarely (never, even?) find direct competitors for resources living in the same niche.

I saw a fascinating study once about these proteins converted compound A into compound B. A slight mutation in the protein would affect the efficiency of this process up or down. Immediately the better mutation would take over completely, leaving no room for the other protein. Even with a single-digit percentage increase in efficiency was enough to drive the other protein to "extinction". Such is the way of nature.

But that is not our way. Not anymore. My wife and I aren't having kids. Know why? Because we both see the tapering of human population growth as a positive trend. It is an incredibly powerful biological force that we have overcome, one that has had millions of years to work its magic on our entire beings, and we wave it away (in non-free-will parlance: the desire to procreate was a weaker stimuli than the social and environmental pressures of too many humans).

This is why I have, in the recent past, pointing to your disgust and pessimism as proof that they are invalid (how meta is that?). The fact that more and more humans are choosing to not eat meat (even though it tastes good and is good for us), are consuming less, are changing their driving habits, are taking an interest in other species, are going "green"... the entire movement invalidates the pessimism we see in its most dour members!

We should all clamor for more progress, but denying it as it happens is a recipe for bitterness and depression. Not a healthy recruiting method.

This is getting nowhere. Just call me a pessimist then

 

[swivel]

This is getting nowhere. Just call me a pessimist then

:bawl: <---Edit: That's me crying, btw. Someone called me a nutter in another thread and I really needed to let it out over here where nobody else would notice.

 

[Enmos]

:bawl: <---Edit: That's me crying, btw. Someone called me a nutter in another thread and I really needed to let it out over here where nobody else would notice.

lol was it tnerb by any chance ?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What a piece of work is man!
How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty!
In form and moving how express and admirable!
In action how like an angel!
In apprehension how like a god!
The beauty of the world!
The paragon of animals!
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

That's a pretty unenlightened view, my friend.

According to your unenlightened opinion.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I find nothing more depressing than optimism. - Paul Fussell

Huh.. ? History doesn't exactly paint a happy picture..
Anyway.. I don't think I'm that pessimistic. Maybe you are just overly optimistic.
Realists often get accused of being pessimistic.

Yes, I get that all the time.