Humans Disrespect Nature

[s1eep]

Humans live in a finite environment, but humans waste vast amounts of the available resources. There are over one-hundred million cars on the roads around the world at one time, burning fuel into the atmosphere--not only are we polluting the air, but we are siphoning valuable oil resource that had natural functions; we also waste in other ways. Humans are abstracting the Earth to be using all this resource that powers their reality. Why is nature foolishly overlooked? We deal damage that wont heal and that causes future humans to suffer, the healthy habitat we live in Today is a desolate wasteland tomorrow; in a few hundred years, maybe even less, humans may be forced into cannibalism because of lack of resources. Our resources will run out or the condition of the planet will get worse, so why do we persist in this erroneous wasting?

Edited December 7, 2013 by s1eep

[Endercreeper01]

I agree. Many humans waste resources.

We are already seeing people suffering. Farmers produce enough food for 12 billion people, but 1 billion people are starving. Humans waste vast amounts of food, and also animals on farms. Animals living on farms eat much more food then they produce from being killed, and this consumes a lot of our food.

[Greg H.]

Our resources will run out or the condition of the planet will get worse, so why do we persist in this erroneous wasting?

Because modern society is terrible at planning the next ten years, much less for time periods that our outside of our lifespan.

[Dekan]

Be proud of this - the human species is the most successful one in the history of the world. We dominate all other creatures.

We can eat them, and they can't eat us.

 

Just think how many turkeys and chickens will go down our throats at Christmas.

 

It's a celebration of human power. Enjoy!

[iNow]

^ Actually, no. Bacteria kick our asses, as do most insects... both of which can cause us to die painful horrible deaths. To suggest we're at the apex or "the most successful species ever" is to ignore reality seemingly to do little more than falsely inflate our egos.

 

To the OP: We've evolved to solve immediate problems required to survive... finding food, shelter, water, avoiding predators. We live in the moment because that's where the biggest dangers have resided for eons. We never had to think about what might happen 100 years from now based on our actions today, and our brains aren't really wired to take that into consideration when making short-term decisions.

 

We solve the immediate need at the expense of the future cost. Instant gratification trumps long-term wisdom. What might happen "down the road" is merely an after-thought.

 

The problem is only made worse and exacerbated when you have active and well funded propaganda campaigns trying to brainwash people into believing that human actions have no impact on the environment, climate, etc.

Edited December 7, 2013 by iNow

[Dekan]

Were all the Pleistocene Ice-Ages, and warm Inter-Glacials, caused by human impact on the environment. climate, etc?

[Greg H.]

We can eat them, and they can't eat us.

This is probably one of the most nonsensical things I've ever read. Animals feed on humans with remarkable frequency.

Were all the Pleistocene Ice-Ages, and warm Inter-Glacials, caused by human impact on the environment. climate, etc?

Absolutely. Forget the fact that we didn't exist as a species for some of them. That's a mere technicality when you're dealing with the mos tadvanced species that ever existed. Obviously, they were caused by time travelling humans dumping waste heat from the future into the past. Duh.

/sarcasm

 

Humans and human activity do impact the environment around us. We're actualy pretty good at adapting the environment we live in to suit us, as opposed to adapting to suit the environment. But changing the environment comes with a price.

[iNow]

Were all the Pleistocene Ice-Ages, and warm Inter-Glacials, caused by human impact on the environment. climate, etc?

Nope, but along similar lines... Just because forest fires can happen naturally doesn't mean it's impossible for humans to start them, too.

[s1eep]

But a healthy habitat is what we need to survive, why is it even legal to be this stupid with our resources? If we could live differently to support ourselves further, why aren't we? Is our ego really that special if it should neglect natural life? Are we really intelligent if all we do is cause future deaths, and destruction, with most of what we do? I fail to see the Government's aims with education that so ruthlessly plunders nature.

[iNow]

Religious teachings often hurt this, too, especially with Judeo-Christian teachings. Telling people that humans have dominion over nature and that god has given humans control over the animals and plants tends to create more of a mindset of slave-keeper than care-taker.

[EdEarl]

But a healthy habitat is what we need to survive, why is it even legal to be this stupid with our resources? If we could live differently to support ourselves further, why aren't we? Is our ego really that special if it should neglect natural life? Are we really intelligent if all we do is cause future deaths, and destruction, with most of what we do? I fail to see the Government's aims with education that so ruthlessly plunders nature.

Two different democratic presidents have installed a solar water heater on the White House, and their republican successor has removed it. Those are insignificant acts considering the energy saved/not saved, but an incredible image of wasted effort by the government regardless of which side you think was right. Once installed, there is no economic downside to leaving the solar water heaters in place.

 

A more significant waste is refusing to change building codes to allow EarthShip homes to be built (see earthship.com). Yet, few counties in the US allow them. Almost 15% of energy used in the US is used to run homes and other residences, and there is no good reason all of them cannot be off-the-grid.

 

In these cases government is working against common sense, and I'm sure there are other examples too.

Edited December 7, 2013 by EdEarl

[cladking]

 

 

In these cases government is working against common sense, and I'm sure there are other examples too.

 

I think you're pretty close to the problem; the status quo.

 

A hundred or two hundred years ago there was a reason for inefficiency and waste but technology has reduced the need for waste. In the past the total amount of waste was more limited because there was far less ability to use resources. Now we have huge machines that can rip vast amounts of valuable material from the earth and ship them almost straight to landfill. It is this flow that powers the modern economy and our leaders are afraid to tinker with it. Instead they make token gestures to increase efficiency or waste more resources for the "good" of people.

 

If we don't have fusion power within the next decade or two there will be an horrendous population decrease caused by all this waste.

Our great grandchildren might survive largely by picking through our garbage dumps.

[turionx2]

To the OP: We've evolved to solve immediate problems required to survive... finding food, shelter, water, avoiding predators. We live in the moment because that's where the biggest dangers have resided for eons. We never had to think about what might happen 100 years from now based on our actions today, and our brains aren't really wired to take that into consideration when making short-term decisions.

Since the advent of technology only a minority of the population lives in the "moment". The majority is either living in the past or the future because of their ADD/ADHD.

 

Some people's brains can take in large amounts of information and process it and proceed to do what needs to be done. Gandhi comes to mind.

 

We solve the immediate need at the expense of the future cost. Instant gratification trumps long-term wisdom. What might happen "down the road" is merely an after-thought.

Sounds like addiction, not a description of a healthy mind.

[BusaDave9]

This is problem because of how much we have over populated the earth

[EdEarl]

This is problem because of how much we have over populated the earth

Overpopulation makes it worse, but when people throw trash out of a car or truck and leave it on the side of the road, that is not due to overpopulation, it is mistreating the Earth. Our burning fossil fuels, one cubic mile of oil per year, is mistreating the earth because that oil turns into CO2. If everyone alive today took good care of the Earth, the Earth could take care of us forever at the present population.

[Phi for All]

In these cases government is working against common sense, and I'm sure there are other examples too.

 

This is one of my tests for corporate involvement. When government is doing something that doesn't make sense, or actually works against what we know is right, look for special interests trying to legislate more profit. It wasn't the government that removed the solar heat from the White House after it had been installed, it was Big Oil making sure a message was sent about protecting their infrastructure.

[turionx2]

Maybe everyone is addicted to pleasure? Driving fast? More salt, sugar and fatty foods? Seems like many addictions in society are the drive for wastefulness.

[Dekan]

Most of the above posts, don't seem to recognise that Humans are a new class of being, which transcends Nature.

 

"Nature" is just animals running around mindlessly, killing and eating each other, in a cruel and disgusting way. With no kindness, or morality, or sense of decency. Any dog-owner can see that when they take their dog out for a walk. The dog suddenly crouches and defecates - in public view, right next to a queue at a bus-stop. The humans look the other way, awkward and embarrassed. And the cruelty of cats, when they play with the small creatures they catch, is well-known - I've seen it, and been shocked and repulsed.

 

So I don't respect "Nature" at all - it's primitive and horrible, and the sooner we get rid of it the better. Civilisation is progress towards this goal - a truly civilised Earth - with all animals except humans eliminated. Some bacteria and algae may have to be kept for a while. But only until we develop artificial substitutes, which will allow non-human organisms to be dispensed with, and "Nature" finally kicked into the dustbin of history.

 

Then we'll have a shining perfect human world, of beautiful cities, libraries, literature, science, mathematics, philosophy, all supporting human minds set free to advance and explore the Universe.

 

Isn't this a better vision of the future, than retreating into the woods and eating berries, as the dismal Greens seem to want us to do?

Edited December 10, 2013 by Dekan

[EdEarl]

Most of the above posts, don't seem to recognise that Humans are a new class of being, which transcends Nature.

 

"Nature" is just animals running around mindlessly, killing and eating each other, in a cruel and disgusting way. With no kindness, or morality, or sense of decency. Any dog-owner can see that when they take their dog out for a walk. The dog suddenly crouches and defecates - in public view, right next to a queue at a bus-stop. The humans look the other way, awkward and embarrassed.

 

And the cruelty of cats, when they play with the small creatures they catch, is well-known - I've seen it, and been shocked and repulsed.

 

So I don't respect "Nature" at all - it's primitive and horrible, and the sooner we get rid of it the better. Civilisation is progress towards this goal.

 

The goal of a truly civilised Earth - with all animals except humans eliminated. Some bacteria and algae may have to be kept for a while -but only until we develop artificial substitutes. Then all non-human organisms can be dispensed with, and "Nature" kicked into the dustbin of history.

 

We'll have a shining perfect world, of beautiful cities, libraries, literature, science, mathematics, philosophy, - the human mind set free to advance and explore the Universe.

 

Isn't this a better vision of the future, than retreating into the woods and eating berries, as the dismal Greens seem to want us to do?

IMO you have an uncivilized view of civilization. We are part of nature, and nothing can eliminate that fact; everything in the universe is part of nature, because we are all made from atoms and must live within the laws of nature. We have no choice, and never will.

[pears]

"Nature" is just animals running around mindlessly, killing and eating each other, in a cruel and disgusting way.

 

To be both mindless AND cruel seems rather contradictory.

 

And the cruelty of cats, when they play with the small creatures they catch, is well-known - I've seen it, and been shocked and repulsed.

 

From the cat's point of view it is just following instincts which also happen to result in it's survival. It's not cruel *because* it is mindless.

 

Cruelty is a distinctly human trait precisely because we have minds that know what cruelty is.

[John Cuthber]

Has anyone noticed how little respect nature has for humans?

It keeps wiping us out in droves.

[EdEarl]

Has anyone noticed how little respect nature has for humans?

It keeps wiping us out in droves.

Anyone who has been tossed by a twister, cowered by a quake, or sequestered by a snow slide will have respect for nature. Unfortunately, they may continue to pollute and otherwise disrespect nature.

[DevilSolution]

Humans are abstracting the Earth to be using all this resource that powers their reality. Why is nature foolishly overlooked? We deal damage that wont heal and that causes future humans to suffer, the healthy habitat we live in Today is a desolate wasteland tomorrow; in a few hundred years, maybe even less, humans may be forced into cannibalism because of lack of resources. Our resources will run out or the condition of the planet will get worse, so why do we persist in this erroneous wasting?

 

Extracting* Were abstracting nature not earth.

 

Nature is a force that works in swings and roundabouts, if we as a combined organism fail then we will cease to exist. Right now you might argue were at war with earth but not nature. Everything is natural, our thoughts, our processes and our relationship to the earth. The nature of humanity may mean we will destroy ourselves, it seems that the effect is widely acknowledged but not the cause. They all talk about the drinking but never the thirst.

Has anyone noticed how little respect nature has for humans?

It keeps wiping us out in droves.

 

A drug addict can binge itself to death, respect for anything requires insight. Forces have no emotions, it amoral.

Edited December 10, 2013 by DevilSolution

[s1eep]

We are only sometimes hurt by nature, the other parts of nature are just as significant, and should be analyzed before coming to the conclusion whether or not nature is worthy of respect. Maybe if you had respected nature more, you would not have been in these disastrous positions you were in when you had your accident. Because people have accidents, what you're suggesting is that, we should be nihilistic in response to nature and worship a wound, because it harmed us sometimes, we isolate all the rest it does for us. If anything, the fact it harms us only shows that it is more powerful sometimes, and should be respected to a degree to harness this power. Also, who do you go to when you are hurt to then heal or even die? It's extremely stupid to not have respect for nature. You, from an empirical perspective, are a word-mammal and not a natural-mammal, you do not conform with nature, you conform to the word. It's insulting to be a word-mammal but that is what you have accepted when you made your case--you have no connection to the environment, let alone most of life. What "reality" do you support? It's definitely not nature, and nature is what reality is composed of. Your blood is significant, it is more nature than it is yourself, "you" would be your consciousness that you have an imaginary word for, one that you believe describes "you", enough for it to make some sort of sense. Your blood is not "you", it's the nature you are a part of most significantly. We live within nature, as nature, and you find ways to avoid having to pay emotionally or maybe even spiritually, for not respecting nature, or simple belief whether or not nature deserves respect-- nature is the most significant factor of life to us.

Edited December 11, 2013 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

It's definitely not nature, and nature is what reality is composed of.

 

Reality disagrees with you. Humans are every bit as real and natural as any other specimen on this planet. What you suggest denies the responsibility we have to this world as it's most intelligent inhabitant. You'll never convince people to be more aware of nature if you keep claiming what we do isn't natural.

 

We need to be more careful with our environment, but trying to claim humans are outside of nature is the worst way to go about it. We need to be our intelligent selves in order to find a balance. It serves no purpose for us to be just like other animals, it's not natural for us to suppress our intelligence. We just need to realize what an evolutionary gift it is and use it more wisely.