Depleting our Environment - We should Panic!

[5614]

that doesnt mean we can replace it and it does mean we should start looking after it.

[Guest HaReLdNkUmAr]

Yea, that would be nice if more people went that extra leap to help conserve/save our planet but it doesn't look like thats going to happen

[NavajoEverclear]

ok, you are right. What I really meant is i think we need to make some urgent changes.

[Guest HaReLdNkUmAr]

I agree, i hope its not to late though

[YT2095]

Urgent Changes would be good, I could get my head `round that

 

of course there`s still money to be made with the current system, the "Live for today" attitude, screw 2moro, I won`t even be here, type of thinking

 

 

a bit sad and selfish most certainly, and then of course you have the "what difference does my little car make on the big scale of things" or "why can`t I throw those few plastic containers on my fire? I`m clearing my yard and making the environ better aren`t I?"

 

 

piss poor excuses if you ask me

[Sayonara]

No offense but that is a very naive attitude that underscores the lack of understanding among most people about the symboytic relationship man has with nature.

I think he's on the right track, personally. Individuals of any species have a tendency to place self-preservation ahead of community concerns. In humans this is manifest constantly, and you can see it all around you every single day. It's not so much that people are self-serving, but that they are fully prepared to shun any claims to individual responsibility for the population and the habitat.

 

 

It seems to me that education is needed more than anything else, as our much more primitive anscestors seem to have a much more functional and harmonious relationship with the world in which they lived, than the general urban populus, which accounts for the largest proportion of resource wastage.

There's only so far education can take us. We are at a point now where we have the most comprehensive and widely-accessible information resources in the history of our civilisation, and yet the rate at which cars are put on the roads in increasing, (etc).

What needs to change first is the attitude that the average person has towards these issues, and the image they have of themselves as a part of society. Most people have a tendency to think of themselves as being slightly

special, and can often find ways to justify all sorts of indiscretions (the consequences of which can really build up when you have millions of people doing the same things).

 

 

Biology on this planet is pretty durable and can (and has) fight back from the brink again and again.

It's an uphill battle in most cases, and there are far more habitats that are unrecoverable than there are those which can still be "fixed". Take the Aral Sea for instance.

It's depressing, but when endangered animals/fish etc show a sudden increase in numbers, even the biologists working on the problem usually say they are surprised.

[LucidDreamer]

I think it's inevitable that with man's increasing population the Earth's biodiversity will decrease. There is a limited amount of resources to go around and if we have to clear forest area to make more land assessable for farm area then some species are going to go extinct. It seems there is little we can do to prevent a decrease in biodiversity. After all, how are we going to support all of the species that are dependent on ecosystems that we need to support a growing population?

 

This at least has been the trend of the last century or so. One of the major problems is political. The U.S. runs around criticizing third world countries about cutting down their forest and hunting animals to extinction but we did the same thing and are still doing it. Education is not enough. We need a comprehensive international plan and the power to enforce it or the trend will continue. Here is a site that I found with a really short summary of the kind of things that we would need to do to protect biodiversity: http://www.aultimaarcadenoe.com/biodiversidadeterraingles.htm

 

There is of course only so much we can do because of the difficulties involved in trying to keep so many species alive. I think the Noah's ark programs are a necessary backup plan. I think these programs that are creating libraries of DNA from life that is at risk of extinction will be considered one of the most intelligent things that we did during what will be considered very barbaric times in the near future. These programs will at least give us a possibility of bringing the creatures that fell through the cracks back after we get our act together.

[Lance]

Considering our cars put out about 3% as much pollution as early cars I think we cane come pretty far. It seems The REAL worry is overpopulation. We have come a LONG way since the industrialization phase and I don’t think people understand how much has really changed. The problem is people are caught up on perfection. They want zero pollution.

 

Also, we (the US) try to discourage third world countries from industrializing. It seems we would rather have everybody else uncivilized and dying of disease than pollute the environment. We have also stopped sending as many treatments for malaria and the likes because protesters have decided that they also pollute the environment. Should we put the well-being of the environment above the well-being of humans?

[NavajoEverclear]

Ok what do you mean this is inevitable? I'll admit that most people don't WANT to change, thats a problem. But another problem is thinking we cant change. We dont NEED to clear a forrest for more farm land or whatever else. For one thing, a heck a lot of resources are wasted feeding beef farms. Stop growing the cows and just go for the crops. If we just stop developing buildings and crap we dont need, there will be plenty of food.

 

Do i have to say again, that it's not the whole world that has a problem, its industrialized nations that make up a relatively small portion of the planetary population, but use a majority of the resources. I will concede that it could be difficult to convice people they dont need the crap of our rich lives, but i will not let you say they are right. People keep saying things (even here in your posts) that either directly say, or imply that we'd have to nearly kill oursleves to make the changes needed to reverse depletion of the enviroment. This is not the case at all. Screw everything you own. Screw this computer. You wont die without it. Very obvious i know, but these are the things that are the problem, and we just turn and ignore it

[Lance]

This is not the case at all. Screw everything you own. Screw this computer. You wont die without it. Very obvious i know, but these are the things that are the problem, and we just turn and ignore it

 

Ok well then you can be the first to throw away your computer and all the crap you dont need and wipe your ass with plastic toilet paper. The ONLY way that this stuff will stop being made is if people like you stop buying it. Dont buy toilet paper and they dont make a profit so they stop producing it. Start wiping your ass with toilet plastic and you support the people that make it and what they stand for it.

 

The problem is people are NOT willing to give that stuff up including you.

[LucidDreamer]

Ok what do you mean this is inevitable? I'll admit that most people don't WANT to change' date=' thats a problem. But another problem is thinking we cant change. We dont NEED to clear a forrest for more farm land or whatever else. For one thing, a heck a lot of resources are wasted feeding beef farms. Stop growing the cows and just go for the crops. If we just stop developing buildings and crap we dont need, there will be plenty of food.

 

Do i have to say again, that it's not the whole world that has a problem, its industrialized nations.... [/quote']

I don't think you have totally thought this through. First of all I find it strange that you are advising that I throw away my computer on an Internet forum. Besides, if look at the proportionate amount of energy use of the appliances of a modern household a computer uses very little energy. The air conditioner uses the most energy followed by the hot water heater, at least at my house. Are you advising that we dispense with air conditioners? Considering every time a heat wave comes along in Texas dozens of people die, just imagine how many people would die without air conditioners. Water heaters--do you really want to do without?

 

Also, without the modern technology that you want to throw out we wouldn't even be able to communicate properly to execute a plan to improve the environment.

 

It may be true that industrialized countries produce more pollution, but I was referring to the decrease in biodiversity. Most of the biodiversity that is threatened is not in industrialized countries; it's in third world countries in South America and Africa. The majority of the pollution problems that you are talking about could be fixed by implementing strict industrial rules and removing most of the cars from the road.

 

A large portion of the air pollution in industrialized countries comes from the millions of cars that we drive around. I use to live in a house where there were 6 cars parked in the driveway and street. Americans are so lazy they drive a quarter of a mile to pick up one item from a convenience store. Building more mass transit, which uses far less energy, could solve a great deal of this problem. By building efficient mass transit in all major cities and making gas tax laws we could reduce 3/4 of the current car use and also reduce a great deal of the air pollution. These solutions, plus other similar plans, are a more practical means to reduce pollution without requiring us to live in the Stone Age again.

[dagaz]

Sure the world is currently in the middle of the sixth mass extinction and this will be really devastating for many of the larger life forms (probably not going to have too great an effect on bacteria) in human time scales BUT in geological time scales biodiversity will recover and come up with some amazing new forms and adaptations, e.g. it was only after the extinction of the dinosaurs that mammals really came to be such a dominant animal of so many ecosystems.