|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Opinions on the Enviornmental issue anyone??? | from frmrjoyish - Tuesday, May 06, 2003
accessed 1984 times Hi everyone, I'm interested to get other people's opinion on the environmental issue. Since the world as we know it was supposed to end ten years ago and..oops..it's still here, it looks like we'll be on this planet for awhile now. I'm in college pursuing a BS in biology with a specialization in Ecology so it's just an interesting topic to me. Maybe you all haven't given it much thought, as you've no doubt had many other things to deal with but if you have an opinion on global warming, fossil fuel use or the human overpopulation problem I'd like to hear it.
No, I'm not a crazy tree hugger or anything, but I think that we should all take interest in the health of our planet since it's not goona be miraculously saved when the "millenium" happens.
There are serious threats to the health of our planet, and unless we address them, as the current administration refuses to do, we'll find ourselves out of a home and I for one am not counting on "heaven" to save me.
Also just one more thing, anyone looking for a career now that your out, consider ecology As we destroy more of our planet, ways to fix the damage are going to be needed more and more. Thus the need for ecologists will continuse to rise. It's an expanding career opportunity. The down side is there's lots of studying for it, but at least you won't have to read GN's or Mo letters! lol! |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Baxter
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sure I will garner a tonne of negative response to this statement, but here goes anyway:
Man has by his very nature been undermining and/or destroying his environment for the entire duration of his history. The present state of ecological/environmental destruction differs only from that of previous millenia in that, having eliminated most of our traditional competition, we now exist in a state of unparraleled security from external threat; we are now left with little to occupy our attention save to consume.
The more we multiply, the more we will consume; thus, the only thing that can save the planet from exorbitant exhaustion is a depletion of human numbers to a more manageable statistic. Either we will do this of our own accord, via war, deliberate human disaster, etc. or nature will do this for us. There is always the possiblity of alleviating this necessity by enforcing major restrictions on mans consumption and reproduction, but this would require A) Unanimity within the global community & B) Totalitarian Rule on a planetary scale. Neither of these are within the contemperary spectrum of practical human political ability, nor in all probability would they become concievably acceptable to the moral tolerance of 90% of the world's governments.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | |  From anewkindofpriest
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 11:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you Baxter for stating it so well, it is indeed clear that we need to depopulate this planet in order to preserve it, to that end I would like you all to take a look at this new religious movement that will no doubt be right up your alley.
http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
Understandably our membership numbers never tend to stay very high, but we manage to make a living through selling burial plots, if you'd like to be a part of our movement then please come look around the site, or if you'd prefer to worship at home and avoid our semi organised religion you may find these pages informative.
http://ash.spaink.net/
Don't worry, it'll all be over soon.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 13:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am not advocating demographic decimation, I am saying that it will happen of it's own accord. Read Malthus if you need referential support. You may not agree with his views or mine; frankly, I don't care. I;m merely stating an opinion. If you don't like it, present an argument instead of trying to draw negative associations to my perspective.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From myapologies
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 14:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
I actually totally agree with you, the reason I posted the link is that website always has me in stitches and underneath the warped humour and unbelievably poor taste (which I love) they have a valid point.
It's obvious that at some point we will need to start controlling our population or it will be forcibly controlled for us, it's a statistical inevitability, there's only so long we can put it off.
Sorry that didn't come across very well, hope this clarifies it. ;-)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from exister
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 11:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
The planet is fucked and soon the cockroaches will take over where our carcasses left off.
Since petroleum is a finite resource the best solution to the problems it causes is to use it up. That way the Saudis can take their 30% unemployed luxury welfare state back to the Stone Age where Exxon (then United Petroleum I believe) found them, we can get big oil money out of government and try to create a sustainable civilization. But what am I saying? As stated in my first paragraph, we will do ourselves in long before this happens.
Cheers! I'm going 4-wheeling!
(reply to this comment)
| from moon beam
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 10:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just saw "The day after tomorrow" Sobering stuff! Good graphics too.
(reply to this comment)
| From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 11:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
That movie is a complete fabrication and laughs in the face of sound science. It is dangerous because it incites fear and hysteria in one set of the population while causing the others to completely ignore any legitimate global climate change issues based on some over dramatized hollywood interpretation of global warming. The fact that global warming will not cause such dramatic and immediate effects makes it no less of a pressing concern but too often the public will not take action until its too late. We should remember that we do not have the luxury of another planet to live on while we experiment and test our limitations on this one! (reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Wednesday, June 30, 2004, 09:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
What the movie shows is the way things can creep up on you if you keep delaying making decisions. Any thing that will get the general population more aware of the world around them is better than nothing in my book. Of course we need to approch the many issues in many ways, recycling (yes I do Joe ;) supporting green policies, not using aeresol cans etc..I was under the impression that enviromentalist's general consensus says the ice caps are melting and that we are heading for the type of disaster, just over a longer time frame, that the movie portrays. There is evidence that the water levels are rising and in the climate change. Sciense does throw up alot of theories but how does yours differ from that scenario? (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Wednesday, June 30, 2004, 15:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree the public needs to be more aware of environmental issues in order to make smarter choices. But the awareness needs to be based on scientific fact not some hollywood pseudo-science. Global warming is a phenomena that is still being studied and we do not have enough information to say for certain what the effects will be on a global scale.
Yes, the ice caps are receeding more and more every year, but the ocean is also getting warmer. It is a common misconseption that the majority of sea level increase will be due to polar melt. At a certain temperature water is at its lowest density. When this occurs water expands. The tremendous volume in the ocean makes sea expansion due to increasing temperatures a much more likely cause of sea level increase than polar melt.
In order to make better choices, the public must have the correct information and not make decisions based on fear and hysteria. This movie does nothing to furthur the cause of science by over dramatizing and elaborating on phenomena that are still being studied. The problem is that the real threats to the ecological balance such as human population increases, biodiversity decreases, and the increasing amounts of pollution and greenhouse gases in our atmosphere don't make for very good special effects!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From moon beam
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 13:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fair enough with your background on the subject, I have quite a few (especially hollywood)that drive me that way too! I guess I like snow, it was a perdictable story line but I left feeling quite entertained. I have seen many documentories and read litle bits but as you say science is still working on it and keeps striving to understand the world around us, that is why I wanted to open the disscusion on your article. (reply to this comment) |
| | From justamovie
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 11:47
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Anyone who would ignore environmental issues because their country didn't drown 'like dey saw in der movies' is highly unlikely to contribute anything to society except an army of trailer trash kids anyway, I wouldn't worry about that angle. The movie does nothing except perhaps raise a little awareness for environmentalism, but I doubt it will accomplish much of that, blaming or crediting Hollywood for serious environmental issues is a complete waste of time.
The only thing that will effect change is individual effort and if enough people get behind it grass roots political action, America joining the Kyoto Protocol might be a good start. But unfortunately exister may be right, it's entirely possible that nothing meaningful will be done until too late and we'll leave it to the cockroaches to sort out, although that kind of blase, defeatist attitude is usually just used as an excuse for inaction caused by laziness.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 11:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Unfortunately all too often credible environmental science is ignored or ridiculed due to environmentalist hype as seen in this movie. A misinformed public can be even more dangerous than an uninformed one. This seems to be the case with a majority of Americans even among the otherwise well educated.
I think the public has a responsibility to educate themselves on the real scientific facts while the scientific community bears the responsibility of opening better lines of communication with the general public. As things stand now, the line between environmentalism and environmental science is much too vague and needs clarification.
I agree 100% that America needs to join the Kyoto protocol. Of course the country that contributes the most pollution should have the strictest controls and bear most of the brunt of clean up. I also agree with ex that the only viable option now is to wait till the world runs out of oil or it is no longer economically feasable to continue to extract it. It will happen within our lifetimes. What we need to be doing now is giving the incentives and tax breaks to inventors of new energy technology not the oil companies who will be obsolete within several decades anyway.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 12:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yet, ironically, I feel justified in owning stock in Exxon-Mobil. Why? Because when the next big energy source comes along they will surely scoop it up preemptively and make it their own. So instead of Big Oil we will have Big Corn or Big Sun or Big Hydrogen.
Oil doesn't make humans greedy or evil. Those urges have been solidly instilled in humans since time immemorial. So while it may be tempting to imagine a world in which hippy ass ideological energy schemes overtake the big man my hunch is that it's not bloody likely; mostly for the simple reason that even in this ideal case the money would eventually corrupt the hippies.
So, all together now class, what is the only thing we learn from history?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 14:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
What we learn from history is that history repeats the mistakes we ignore. A good book Joy, is World Odyssey, by Hertzgaard.
He takes a trip around the world and talks about the practical situations why people for obvious reasons don't respond to ecological problems when they're starving and trying to make a living, but how some of the major decisions are really not up to them, but up to the larger corporations, and why they feel their profits can't suffer from 'tomorrow of humanity'. It's easy to take a pessimistic attitude, but the truth is that there are alternatives to our present situation, to improve and eventually bring the earth back to its state of homeostais and balance, that doesn't have to cut into profits, or that might be an initial investment but on the longrun will save money from having to contain larger problems down the road.
I recomend the book, since I know that ignorance is probably the main reason why most people feel comfused about the whole situation, and helpless at knowing if any action is worth their time and energy.
Humans being greedy and evil, sounds appealing but I don't know that we are any more evil that good. That sounds like a selfulfilling profecy. If we were purely evil, we'd probably destroy ourselves already long ago. And the term evil and greedy are also often overrated in their functional setting. greed is not always evil, and whats evil for one is not for the other.
There is the right and wrong thing to do, it's just not always that simple to find it, truth is beyond subjective biases, and relative cultures, but that doesn't mean we need to have a dictatorial law governing every aspect of our lives, maybe just a few, one being global issues such as those of the environment and overpopulation, which in my opinion is far worse than almost any environmental problem today.
A lot of the problems today are directly associated with the fact that we have too many fucking people on this planet. Sure, it means more money to some, but eventually we all lose, and not in the too distant future.
For one we need to stop being so buisy and take the time to see what happens around us. It's a sacrifice to make time to meditate one what's happening and come up with practical solutions on how to pressure those who hold the power to change things, such as the big poluters, foreign countries who also disregard polution laws, but there is not quick easy solution, and the blaming game just doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Complexity of life in our century and how we crave it instead of realizing that we can live with a lot less than we think we do, is a practical step in the right direction. I'm not a communist, but I realize that our economy is run by people like me, and my values are part of what drives my economy. What I chose to buy, what I chose to wear, what car I chose to drive, who I chose to vote, and what work company I chose to work for is my way of telling the world what I feel is ok. But is it?
On a college level, what I've done is taken some environmental classes that also fulfil the requirement for my humanities, and I know that down the line, when and if I am in a place to make decisions, that simple decision can affect a whole rage of decisions concerning my surrounding, and eventually if enough of us decide to at least show interest in the environment, the soil we live in, and take small practical steps in the direction of giving a fuck, instead of the tasteless indiference that permeates so much of our society today, we might have the power to change the course of history weather we are recognised for it or not, is recognition really the issue? I'm sure some positive reinforcement doesn't hurt, and I know that even in my own life seing the direct karma of my actions changes my destiny and how I perceive myself and the world arond me.
Although I admire those who dedicate their lives to the environment, I think most have a greater power together in making small decisions that affect the grand scale of things on an aggregate level.
About global warming, it's definately happening, how much of it is from us now, that's a bit more tricky, but for the most part the scientific community has gone pretty far to point out the exponential warming within the last few years, which is a pretty good indicator of the last few generations and what they've done, on the other hand, oil is running out too... who who knows it might fix itself. Most of our recycling efforts are really pretty lame when it comes to conserving energy as Pen and Teller put so well in their show 'Bullshit', but that's very different from just tossing things all over the place... that's obvously not helping.
I agree with the notion that government adds that portray an extreme view of political issues discredit their voice to the point where people don't give a shit. Hollywood... well, that's a different story. We never did take them all that seriously... with 'The day after tomorrow' let imagination take it's course from an extreme perspective for the emotional power of it... at least people are talking about the issue, much like people are talking about our hypocritical foreign policy by watching Michael More's new film, "Farenheight 911".
The book I mentioned above, Earth Odysey is not the only book from theat author, Hertzgaard. The last book we covered in our political class from that author is "The eagle's shadow" describing key issues and questions in our country's poltical foreign policy standards and how they don't match at all with our domestic ones. We have a pretty high moral ground in our respect for americans, and a real careless atitude about those who are not like us, which really is like spitting on human dignity and all it should stand for.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From www.spokesmanbooks.com
Monday, July 26, 2004, 09:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
"The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling - their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability. Remember this; we be many and they are few. They need us more than we need them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quite day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy, Confronting Empire(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Joe H
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 11:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Back in high school, I noted a sort of Murphy's law of theology discussions: get into one with a stupid person, and he/she will inevitably bring up the movie Dogma. I guess Day After Tommorrow is the Dogma for the light-weights of the environmentalist crowd, who only care enough to watch a movie and maybe sort their recycling. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From angryperson
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 11:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
No Joe, not other people, just you, and backpedalling now and telling her you don't think she's stupid just because you've been called for it doesn't really do anything for you except make you look like an coward who won't even stick to his guns in a fight.
And if you read my post it's quite clear what I'm accusing you of, I've spelt it out quite clearly in a reply to exister further down as well if you're struggling, if you wish to reply to my comments and defend yourself then please do so, or perhaps you'd prefer to keep engaging what you see as an easier target.
Your comment quite clearly stated that you felt that anyone who mentioned that film when this topic is raised is stupid, as your comment was in reply to someone who had just done just that you were clearly calling her stupid, then when you're attacked for being unpleasant you claim not to have called her stupid and tell her to stay cool.
As I said in my first post, you saw someone you thought would be an easy target and provide an opportunity to feel smart at someone else's expense, you acted like a total jerk, when challenged on it you backpedal like crazy and pretend you meant something else. You need a spine and some personality, log off and go look for some.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 12:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I never called moon beam stupid; at best, my comment only implied it. Am I the only one who thinks that it could just as easily have been read as a joke or a gentle ribbing of moon beam for her lazy response?
"Your comment quite clearly stated that you felt that anyone who mentioned that film when this topic is raised is stupid" No, it didn't. I said "MAYBE this movie will become the Dogma for the LIGHTWEIGHTS of the environmentalist crowd, who only care enough to watch a movie and sort their recycling" I'm not calling moon beam stupid, just lazy. I haven't even seen the movie, and I don't sort my recycling, so I'm just as bad as she is.
Maybe you're new on here, if so, you need to learn that less than half of the things I say should be taken seriously, the other half I say merely because I think they'd be amusing and I'm the only one with the balls to say them. Yes, I'll do anything for a laugh, but I have been the butt of my own jokes far more often than any other participant on this site has. Maybe you could work on your own sense of humor before jumping in to defend someone who hasn't even asked for your help? (reply to this comment) |
| | From finalrebuttal
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 14:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sheesh, misquoting yourself when you can't even edit the original, that's a new one.
"MAYBE this movie will become the Dogma for the LIGHTWEIGHTS of the environmentalist crowd, who only care enough to watch a movie and sort their recycling"
Is different from
"I guess Day After Tommorrow is the Dogma for the light-weights of the environmentalist crowd"
One is saying that it might possibly become it, and the other is saying that you think it already is, but it's a moot point as the comparison you were drawing was that moon beam was stupid, and you did at least admit that you could be interpreted to be implying moonbeam is stupid (or was being stupid).
As far as my sense of humour is concerned, I have a very dark, cynical sense of humour and a fine appreciation for the ridiculous, but I guess people attacking women they perceive as an easy target doesn't really make me laugh, perhaps something to do with seeing it too many times as I was growing up.
It's likely I have some kind of complex, perhaps related to residual guilt over not managing to stop things I saw in the past, there's a bunch of easy pop-psychology terms for my disorder but who cares? But when I see a big person beating on someone smaller, or a well spoken, well educated, literate person ridiculing someone who they perceive as being less so then I feel the urge to pile in and level things a little, call it what you will, I've just seen too many people with authority abuse it. Oh, and as for authority, literacy and rudimentary wit automatically confers some authority when communicating in a written medium.
As far as reading it as a joke, read it however you like, but if you've studied at all and had any contact with psychology you should know how damaging it is to anyone's self esteem to be ridiculed, even in jest, particularly by anyone perceived to be intelligent, part of growing up is developing some understanding for the effects of your words and actions, if you're old enough to be let out on your own you're old enough to start learning this.
You are an educated, literate, somewhat witty person with an occasional cruel streak, I won't speculate as to why you feel the need to put other's down any further, I've done that more than enough already. I will apologise for coming on too strong, fair point, you're probably a decent guy most of the time, but take responsibility for your actions, you were cutting and needlessly cruel, whether in jest or not is irrelevant.
Bah, enough is enough, I've said my piece but it's nearly impossible to change anyone's habits by lecturing so I'll stop bothering, you have at least tried to turn it into a joke which is as close as you most likely get to an adult apology for your behaviour, I'll be satisfied with that. I just wish people would remember that there's real people on the other side of the computer screens and an insult is just as hurtful, so many people turn into really nasty individuals when they don't need to look the other person in the eye while talking.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Vicky
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 11:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do think people take Joe a bit too seriously sometimes, I mean most of us are never going to meet him, he's just a guy on the other side of the screen for God's sake, we don't actually have to care what he thinks.
I personally do feel quite 'lightweight' compared to Exister, Joe, Frmrjoyish, and others on this site - The way Pharmaboy writes drives me mad with envy - but it doesn't intimidate me. I know that I have a great deal of education to catch up on and many times it is embarrassing, but at the same time I am confident enough in myself that I can handle a bit of opposition without getting too hot under the collar. The people who engage in these long-running feuds and tit-for-tat insult sessions only seem overly concerned with what Joe thinks.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Haunted
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 11:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Personaly, I think that Joe has about all the personality we can handle on this site - no thanks to those who egg him on. And seriously, is there anyone else who so faithfully posts his insults under his real name or well-know pseudonyms? I mean, he might just be proud of being a prick - but at least he knows he is one and owns up to it. Joe - this so does not mean I'm defending you pal - so don't think I've gone soft!!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Idisagree
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 11:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
just because it doesn't meet your stringent intellectual standards doesn't make it meaningless or thoughtless, by the sound of it that thought was her first honest response to the topic put forward, Joe could have discussed it with her if he felt like educating someone, he could have ignored it if he thought it was beneath him, he did neither, he called her stupid, that could have served no purpose except making him feel smarter by comparison.
Not everyone is witty and sophisticated, and expecting everyone here to conform to what he sees as his own lofty intellectual standards and cutting down and deriding the thoughts and feelings of those he sees as his intellectual inferiors just makes him a nasty piece of work.
This is not a website dedicated to the intelligentsia that Joe obviously feels he belongs to, it's dedicated to people who have come out of a cloistered repressive cult who in many cases haven't had the advantage of a good education, if he can't respect the thoughts and feelings of other ex members perhaps not as educated as him then he is not a worthwhile human being.
Just because you regularly use words such as interjection or correlation in a sentence doesn't make you better than anyone else, perhaps just a little better educated, from what I've seen here it certainly isn't a mark of class, culture, ethics or anything else which makes up a worthwhile individual.
Evolve please people, there's more to character than education.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 13:18
 (Agree/Disagree?)
"there's more to character than education"
Yet another true statement. Saying dumb things has very little to do with one's degree of education and everything to do with one's innate creativity. There are plenty of very dull college graduates and many very interesting high school dropouts to prove my point. When Joe calls someone out for being trite and dull it actually makes The World a better place because it spares us their trite ill-conceived drivel in the future.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]