Hot Arctic

[damus]

science is not the end all be all for everything in this world. it has yet to answer many basic questions... such as how the world began.

Not just the world, but the universe. This forum has got me thinking of that more than usual right now....

[Miesian Corners]

Not just the world, but the universe. This forum has got me thinking of that more than usual right now....

Does it have you thinking as to why the world's glaciers are melting at an alarming rate? Why Lake Chad has dried up? Why the permafrost is melting all over the world?

[damus]

Does it have you thinking as to why the world's glaciers are melting at an alarming rate? Why Lake Chad has dried up? Why the permafrost is melting all over the world?

Not really, if you read what I've been posting in this and the creationism thread I've been pondering that "how the heck did it all begin" thing... it goes beyond the big bang.

I think I've stated in this thread that I'm not saying that we don't pollute, but that the USA gets an unfair amount of attention. Someone posted a link that showed the USA consuming the most barrels of oil, but Canada was right in that top ten with a number that extrapolates to just about what we consume yet I never hear of anyone complaining about Canada. Doesn't a larger percentage of their population than ours live in big cities with adequate mass transit? They still end up burning more oil than us. I also have a huge problem with everyone basically ignoring the increasing problem with developing nations' contributions of green house gases to the atmosphere. The biggest environmental problem in the world, in my opinion, is not Americans and their cars but Africans and Brazilians and their lack of respect for the sanctity of their tropical rain forests. Is Brazil becoming independent from foreign oil because of a noble environmental concern? I think it's purely for economic security. How much of the sugar used to make their ethanol was grown where a rain forest used to be?

[dimebag1980]

Does it have you thinking as to why the world's glaciers are melting at an alarming rate? Why Lake Chad has dried up? Why the permafrost is melting all over the world?

Knowing the Earth goes through these cycles of warming (and cycles of cooling) throughout its life (science tells us this, too, you know,) then these issues don't alarm me. If, in fact, we did evolve, then we'll evolve yet again to live in our new "water world."

[Recchia]

Knowing the Earth goes through these cycles of warming (and cycles of cooling) throughout its life (science tells us this, too, you know,) then these issues don't alarm me. If, in fact, we did evolve, then we'll evolve yet again to live in our new "water world."

I tend to agree, although I also think we are certainly not helping the matter at all by pumping our atmosphere full of greenhouse gases. Nor do I think we should use the excuse that we may just be in a "warming phase" to justify continuing our polluting ways.

[monsoon]

Knowing the Earth goes through these cycles of warming (and cycles of cooling) throughout its life (science tells us this, too, you know,) then these issues don't alarm me. If, in fact, we did evolve, then we'll evolve yet again to live in our new "water world."

Technology has stopped human evolution as we don't allow natural selection to cull the species anymore. We are dependant upon that technology for our survival now. Vast climate change brought on by the excessive use of that technology in the case of the USA, and others following in our footsteps, ironically could bring on vast changes to human existance on this planet, most of it not good. I find no confort that we continue to foul our own environment with little regard to the consequences. A minor shift in climate brought on the dark ages in Europe and that was just drop in the bucket compared to Global Warming. This is not a natural cycle.

To the earlier arguments about the USA being singled out. There was a time when the USA set the standard for good the rest of the world was happy to follow. Instead of complaining that Kyoto and other similar agreements are unfair to the USA, we should be saying as a nation that we are going to lead the world to better sustainablility. It's good for us and it is good for everyone else on this planet. The rest of the planet used to look at the USA as the one place to solve global problems. I am afraid however, and confirmed by some of the responses here that we have become a nation to obsessed with our own material wants and consumption to be much concerned with anyone else anymore. It's a shame as it could be much different.

[dimebag1980]

I am afraid however, and confirmed by some of the responses here that we have become a nation to obsessed with our own material wants and consumption to be much concerned with anyone else anymore.

I admit I'm just as guilty as the next guy about being so self-absorbed with my way of life that I haven't changed anything about the way I consume resources. Even if I'm not 100% with the notion of global warming, is a small change too much to ask? Certainly not. What I find funny about my own self is that, while I don't act too concerned about pollution and such, I've always been concerned with what I throw away. Since being taught at an early age about how quickly our landfills tend to overflow, I have since always compacted everything I throw away. I can be at McDonald's and have a Big Mac, large fries, large drink, a few napkins, a straw, ketchup packets, etc, but when I leave McDonald's I will throw it all away as a very compact little fry box that's been compressed to nothing. I will typically empty the ice out of my cup (because it will eventually melt anyway,) fold my Big Mac box up to nothing, crush my cup down to nothing, gather all my excess paper (ketchup packets, straws & straw wrappers, and napkins,) and squeeze it all into my fry box. I then compress my fry box down to nothing by squeezing it in my hand. By the time I throw it away, it's a small square of maybe 3"x3".

If only I could force myself to make small changes like this in my daily life. But how? Where I work and where I live aren't really transit-friendly. At lunch time I find myself desperately needing my car to get to an area where there are food choices. Not to mention I often have to run errands in my car, so again that's not transit-friendly. Sometimes I wish I lived in downtown Chicago, because I always tell my wife that, if I lived down there, I would either walk to work or take the EL.

[damus]

To the earlier arguments about the USA being singled out. There was a time when the USA set the standard for good the rest of the world was happy to follow. Instead of complaining that Kyoto and other similar agreements are unfair to the USA, we should be saying as a nation that we are going to lead the world to better sustainablility. It's good for us and it is good for everyone else on this planet. The rest of the planet used to look at the USA as the one place to solve global problems. I am afraid however, and confirmed by some of the responses here that we have become a nation to obsessed with our own material wants and consumption to be much concerned with anyone else anymore. It's a shame as it could be much different.

I'm sorry, but what changes has the US brought upon the world that did not have a positive effect on its economy? World War 2 resulted in the rise of the USA as the global superpower. The USA sat idly by during both World Wars and let the Europeans duke it out before we came along to end them. Henry Ford, the Internet, everything seems to have been done at least in part for the economic betterment of the USA. I can think of a few things that we did that might be considered benevolent (or foolish) like giving back the Panama canal. With all the people who complain about the outsourcing of jobs, why would the US government condone the Kyoto Protocol's unfairness towards developed nations that would put American workers at a further competitive disadvantage over the "slave laborers", all of which was enabled with bipartisan support in Washington.

The world has not liked the US as the "solver of global problems" as far as I can remember. That's how the terrorism we are dealing with now came about in the first place.

[monsoon]

I'm sorry, but what changes has the US brought upon the world that did not have a positive effect on its economy?

And why would you assume that building a sustainable environment would not be good for the economy?

The world has not liked the US as the "solver of global problems" as far as I can remember. That's how the terrorism we are dealing with now came about in the first place.

Issues such as terrorism have resulted in our ignoring and/or causing the conditions that lead to terrorism.

[damus]

And why would you assume that building a sustainable environment would not be good for the economy?

The Kyoto Protocol simply allows for the pollution to shift to other parts of the world, at the cost of the developed world. I'm pro-environment, but unfortunately money still makes the world go around. I think the best way to deal with this in the future is researching for better technology and not to unfairly punish the countries who were developed and started polluting first. If the world, or at least the free traders, would agree to a common set of regulations then it would be different, but I do not see that happening.

[runawayjim]

Technology has stopped human evolution as we don't allow natural selection to cull the species anymore. We are dependant upon that technology for our survival now.

this is completely and utterly wrong. as someone who has studied evolution, the technology we use has caused us to continue to evolve in many ways. again, there is no such thing as de-evolution. once evolution occurs, it never stops, regardless of what artificial factors we throw in. vaccines, medications, modern medicine in general, the suburban way of life (nice homes with air conditioners and chlorine filled swimming pools), cities... have all changed the way our bodies evolve. a quick couple of examples...

people who live in cities and the suburbs are more likely to suffer from asthma than those who live on farms. people who spend most of their time indoors are more likely to suffer from asthma than those who spend more time outdoors. how does this equate to evolution? the body won't change much and anything it does in response to this, in the form of the respiratory system does get passed down in one way or another.

the human body is more susceptible to disease now that we've overridden our natural immune systems with drugs and artificial immunities. it's not only caused us to evolve into a weaker species, but allowed viruses and bacteria to evolve into stronger species as they mutate to form their own immunities to our medication.

natural selection is still at work in humans whether you believe it or not. the weak die off the fit survive. it takes on a different meaning as there are many more factors involved with humans (thought rather than instinct, for example), but survival of the fittest is still in play. however, we are all natural beings and nature has its own way of keeping a balance... we can't completely override the rules of nature and get away scott free.

[Miesian Corners]

I think the best way to deal with this in the future is researching for better technology and not to unfairly punish the countries who were developed and started polluting first. If the world, or at least the free traders, would agree to a common set of regulations then it would be different, but I do not see that happening.

Here's the thing: we HAVE the technology, we simply choose not to use it. We go backwards while the rest of the post industrial world goes forward.

[damus]

Here's the thing: we HAVE the technology, we simply choose not to use it. We go backwards while the rest of the post industrial world goes forward.

What do you mean? Windmills, solar energy? Cape Cod is the perfect place for windmills, and they turned it down (isn't it along with the islands a bastion of rich liberals?). I believe a US company is the leader in horizontal windmill technology, which increases the efficiency of the mills. The free market works only if the people are willing to pay for it. I for one, if I had the money and owned the house I live in, would invest in solar panels for the rooftop. We're still the economic powerhouse of the world, anyways..

[monsoon]

....natural selection is still at work in humans whether you believe it or not. the weak die off the fit survive. it takes on a different meaning as there are many more factors involved with humans (thought rather than instinct, for example), but survival of the fittest is still in play. however, we are all natural beings and nature has its own way of keeping a balance... we can't completely override the rules of nature and get away scott free.

If the weak survive long enough to have children than natural selection is broken. I am not aware that asthema sufferes are not having children. You are very correct however about nature keeping a balance and that is what we need to fear.

[runawayjim]

If the weak survive long enough to have children than natural selection is broken. I am not aware that asthema sufferes are not having children. You are very correct however about nature keeping a balance and that is what we need to fear.

i don't fear nature's balance, nor do i think we need to fear it. the balance is there anyways, the human race will cease to exist someday.

in the end, we're simply just a part of it all and not greater than anything else on the planet.

[intcvlcphlga]

i don't fear nature's balance, nor do i think we need to fear it. the balance is there anyways, the human race will cease to exist someday.

in the end, we're simply just a part of it all and not greater than anything else on the planet.

You really cannot argue that we, as humans, have no greater part in affecting the planet than anything else on Earth. While you may disagree with whether or not global warming is happening, it is very difficult to assert that humans are just an equal participant in the daily functioning of the planet. For example, take the logging industry, a human endeavor, is it not having a greater affect on the planet than say the logging enterprises of a multitude of beavers? And, while I'm maligning the beaver, what about the end result of their deforesting ways, their dams? By your reasoning, is a beaver's dam on par with the Hoover Dam? Somehow, I think the planet would argue that the Hoover Dam has played a bigger role in transforming nature than the beaver's dam. And, don't get me started on the mining exploits of fire ants vis-a-vis the coal mining industry...

[runawayjim]

You really cannot argue that we, as humans, have no greater part in affecting the planet than anything else on Earth. While you may disagree with whether or not global warming is happening, it is very difficult to assert that humans are just an equal participant in the daily functioning of the planet. For example, take the logging industry, a human endeavor, is it not having a greater affect on the planet than say the logging enterprises of a multitude of beavers? And, while I'm maligning the beaver, what about the end result of their deforesting ways, their dams? By your reasoning, is a beaver's dam on par with the Hoover Dam? Somehow, I think the planet would argue that the Hoover Dam has played a bigger role in transforming nature than the beaver's dam. And, don't get me started on the mining exploits of fire ants vis-a-vis the coal mining industry...

i should've been a bit better at explaining what i meant. in the long run, the human being is just another part of nature. nature as a whole (not just the functioning of the planet) is a much greater force than humans. yes, we are better at logging than beavers and better at building dams than beavers. yes, we have aided the natural process of global warming, perhaps increasing the speed of the current warming cycle. however, there will be a cooling cycle to follow, thus balancing everything we, as humans, have done, throwing us back into our place in the natural order of things.

[dimebag1980]

Technology has stopped human evolution as we don't allow natural selection to cull the species anymore. We are dependant upon that technology for our survival now. Vast climate change brought on by the excessive use of that technology in the case of the USA, and others following in our footsteps, ironically could bring on vast changes to human existance on this planet, most of it not good. I find no confort that we continue to foul our own environment with little regard to the consequences. A minor shift in climate brought on the dark ages in Europe and that was just drop in the bucket compared to Global Warming. This is not a natural cycle.

To the earlier arguments about the USA being singled out. There was a time when the USA set the standard for good the rest of the world was happy to follow. Instead of complaining that Kyoto and other similar agreements are unfair to the USA, we should be saying as a nation that we are going to lead the world to better sustainablility. It's good for us and it is good for everyone else on this planet. The rest of the planet used to look at the USA as the one place to solve global problems. I am afraid however, and confirmed by some of the responses here that we have become a nation to obsessed with our own material wants and consumption to be much concerned with anyone else anymore. It's a shame as it could be much different.

This is where I get off the bus, because when you start getting into how evolution itself has evolved, then I'm out of my league and I'm fine with admitting that.

[runawayjim]

This is where I get off the bus, because when you start getting into how evolution itself has evolved, then I'm out of my league and I'm fine with admitting that.

evolution has not evolved and it never will. it has not stopped and never will. we may be evolving into a weaker species, but we are still evolving.

[damus]

evolution has not evolved and it never will. it has not stopped and never will. we may be evolving into a weaker species, but we are still evolving.

There was actually a story a month or two ago on the AP wire that said humans are still evolving. It was something relatively stupid like the liver's tolerance to alcohol or something, but scientists have said evolution is still occuring...

[intcvlcphlga]

i should've been a bit better at explaining what i meant. in the long run, the human being is just another part of nature. nature as a whole (not just the functioning of the planet) is a much greater force than humans. yes, we are better at logging than beavers and better at building dams than beavers. yes, we have aided the natural process of global warming, perhaps increasing the speed of the current warming cycle. however, there will be a cooling cycle to follow, thus balancing everything we, as humans, have done, throwing us back into our place in the natural order of things.

The concern that I have with your line of thinking is that in order for "us" to be "thrown back into our place in the natural order of things," means that nature will do what it has to to render us extinct. It's not about whether or not our dams are better than beavers' dams - that wasn't my point (and, I would probably argue for the superiority of the beaver's constructions within your context of the "natural order of things."). It's about the fact that what we have done and are doing to the planet is unnatural in so much as it's tampering with the normal warming and cooling cycles that the earth goes through. The fossil fuels and the coal that we extricate from the earth and their intrinsic carbon stores were built up over millions of years. In about 100 years, we've unearthed all of them and released all of their carbon stores into the atmosphere through the carbon dioxide emitted from burning them. Effectively, we have thrown the earth out of balance.

[damus]

It's about the fact that what we have done and are doing to the planet is unnatural in so much as it's tampering with the normal warming and cooling cycles that the earth goes through. The fossil fuels and the coal that we extricate from the earth and their intrinsic carbon stores were built up over millions of years. In about 100 years, we've unearthed all of them and released all of their carbon stores into the atmosphere through the carbon dioxide emitted from burning them. Effectively, we have thrown the earth out of balance.

But are you willing to give up your quality of life? We could either all live like Ted Kazinsky or work towards technology that will not pollute so much. Windmills and solar power aren't enough to completely fix the problem. Environmentalists have now made Hydroelectric power plants something we won't be seeing too many of being built soon. Nuclear power could provide all the electricity needed to create fuel cells for our homes, cars, everthing. Of course there are the concerns related to nuclear power. There's no real easy answer to this problem...

This just made me think of another figure in a different thread... How much oil would France and Germany use, and how close would their per capita usage be to ours, if they didn't have so many nuclear power plants?

[runawayjim]

The concern that I have with your line of thinking is that in order for "us" to be "thrown back into our place in the natural order of things," means that nature will do what it has to to render us extinct. It's not about whether or not our dams are better than beavers' dams - that wasn't my point (and, I would probably argue for the superiority of the beaver's constructions within your context of the "natural order of things."). It's about the fact that what we have done and are doing to the planet is unnatural in so much as it's tampering with the normal warming and cooling cycles that the earth goes through. The fossil fuels and the coal that we extricate from the earth and their intrinsic carbon stores were built up over millions of years. In about 100 years, we've unearthed all of them and released all of their carbon stores into the atmosphere through the carbon dioxide emitted from burning them. Effectively, we have thrown the earth out of balance.

if we are rendered extinct, i say so be it. does anyone know the benefit of our species continuing to live on forever (until the sun burns out that is)?

[damus]

if we are rendered extinct, i say so be it. does anyone know the benefit of our species continuing to live on forever (until the sun burns out that is)?

What's the benefit of us being around now? Hopefully the species will be able to outlive the planet. By the time a major catastrophe hits Earth we could have settlements here and there across the universe.

[runawayjim]

What's the benefit of us being around now? Hopefully the species will be able to outlive the planet. By the time a major catastrophe hits Earth we could have settlements here and there across the universe.

the only reason other than selfishness that people feel it's important for our species to live forever is because of religion.

nature will take its course, and if that means our species becomes extinct, that's what that means... it's gonna happen someday anyways. it's not a matter of if it will happen, it's when it will happen. we cannot completely change the course of nature.