Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

Humans damaging earth *really* badly


ok, lets have a vote:

{A} Stupid top 1300 exports from 95 countries dont have a clue what they are talking about...no need to change what we are doing.

[B] Its doesn't matter, the earth often does things like that, and although the current human society may be doomed for now, it will recover...no need to change what we are doing.

[C]Its not true, bush said that everything is going ot be ok and I believe him...no need to change what we are doing.

[D} I believe its happening, I just dont care enough to actually do anything.

[E] Thats it, im going to change my lifestyle to make it more sustainable.

Im a [D], how about you?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 29th, 2005
Article: The study, by 1360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two-thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years.

Me: There is stil 1/3 left.
Permalink Alex K 
March 29th, 2005
There are very few ways that a few billion people can really have an impact upon the Earth. It's quite a large surface, with lots of resources.

Having said that, the few ways include:

1. Burning down rain-forests. Big CO2 recycler/oxygen generator there, not to mention the water cycle.

2. Converting all the oil created in the last few hundred million years into energy and CO2 and miles traveled in less than 200 years.

3. Raising the average temperature of the planet, due to the interactions of 1 and 2.

If it is any consolation, what will happen as the oil runs out is that food production (gasoline, fertilizer, pesticides) will become dramatically less efficient. Therefore we'll probably have lots of starvation until the human population drops to the point where food production is sustainable.

At the same time, alternate energy sources like solar and nuclear -- which are too expensive now -- will become comparatively more affordable. If we use them to make Hydrogen, we'll still be able to keep our cars.

Now, the sun's solar cycle (12 years of heating up and cooling down) and the El Nino current probably have as large an effect on the weather and global temperatures. So humans can't damage the earth really badly, the scales are wrong. We can screw ourselves up pretty badly, though.

Vote Democratic. When Bush says Open Skies, he means Open to burning more coal. Which won't run out for a thousand years, if that's any consolation. When he says Preserve Our Forests, he means for logging and for oil production.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 29th, 2005
I'm working on a moon rocket in my backyard. I can have a whole planet to myself, and it's only 240,000 miles away!
Permalink example 
March 29th, 2005
I believe it. Short of dropping out, becoming homeless and eating other people's garbage, I don't yet know what I can do to "change my lifestyle to make it more sustainable".

If you can tell me (how to make my lifestyle more sustainable), I'd be interested!

Consider http://eartheasy.com/article_canada_challenge.htm for example:

* "Eat meat-free meals every other day" - all my meals are meat-free already

* "Park the car for 60 days this year" - I don't own a car

* "Switch from hot to warm or cold water for every load of laundry" - I use warm; I could consider cold

* "Switch two standard light bulbs to more efficient fluorescent bulbs" - btdt

* "Replace the current shower head with a low-flow model" - I would need to ask the land-lord; perhaps I'll consider that

* "Turn the thermostat down two degrees for one year" - can't; this appartment is heated by centrally-heated water radiators and has no thermostat

* "Cut vehicle fuel use by 10 gallons in 2003" - I still don't own a car

* "Replace the 20-year-old fridge with an energy-saver model" - done

* "Send out one fewer 30-gallon bag of garbage per week" - you have several 30-gallon bags of garbage per week?

* "Leave the car at home two days per week this year" - still no car

* "Recycle aluminum cans, glass bottles, plastic, cardboard and newspapers" -- btdt

I do fly sometimes, which is fuel-intensive, and so far I haven't been willing to change that (because I have family abroad): so put me down for [B], [D], [E], and [F], please.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 29th, 2005
Dude, didn't you hear? Humans on the moon was a spoof--check your facts:

Permalink Anon Coward 
March 29th, 2005
One interesting way to make a difference - find a candidate that strongly supports tax incentives for telecommuters and get all your friends to send them lots of cash.

Permalink Philo 
March 29th, 2005
I think Hanrahan was right - we'll all be ruined.


I confess I've been interested in this since the Club of Rome published "Limits to Growth" when I was a sprout.


If I knew where it was all going I'd know where to invest :-) but it's fairly obvious circulation costs will rise. Sort of like musical chairs - those who run out of things last will win (sort of).
Permalink trollop 
March 29th, 2005
> "... This means that environmental disasters (like cyclones, bush fires and oil spills) are all calculated as additions to the gross national product because of the increased economic activity associated with the clean up and repairs... "

That reminds me of a joke from Adbusters: "Every time a forest is cut down, the GNP goes up. Every time someone gets cancer, the GNP goes up. Help save the world: teach economists to subtract!"
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 29th, 2005
Recommended reading: STARK by Ben Elton

About the global breakdown of ecologic systems due to polution and all the rich weasels try to get out by settling on the moon.
Permalink Geert-Jan Thomas 
March 30th, 2005
A mixture of [B] and [D].
Permalink Daniel Daranas 
March 30th, 2005
Classic tragedy of the commons. I don't think it is going to be solved soon. Gobally enforced loophole free draconian energy tax anyone?
Permalink Just me (Sir to you) 
March 30th, 2005
I started a topic on this already: Democrats need to take "energy independence" as their issue.

This DOES NOT mean higher gasoline taxes. It does mean higher fuel efficiency, hybrids, hydrogen, radically more efficient buildings, etc. etc.

I'm stealing this idea from an ex-Marine who supports Bush but says we need to start a new Manhattan project/moon shot program to create an alternative fuel source to petroleum.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 30th, 2005
Need to decouple to energy efficiency arguments from the green/socialist rhetoric.

Until this happens, no one is serious about it.
Permalink hoser 
March 30th, 2005
The people who make money from fossil fuels do NOT want any replacements, nor do they want the issue of problems caused by fossil fuels to even be discussed. Which is why they will use propagandistic labels like "socialist" to prevent any discussion. They will also use slogans like "we need more research" to prevent anything from being done before they cash out.

Will oil run out? Don't worry, we will invade every country WITH oil reserves when we need the lebensraum.
Permalink Peter 
March 30th, 2005
So Peter,

What you're saying is that capitalism and environmentalism are fully compatible and any statement to the contrary are merely supporters of entrenched technologies propaganda?
Permalink hoser 
March 30th, 2005
Funny, I didn't interpret what he said to mean that.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 30th, 2005

Peter is claiming that the oil industry is using stereo types to stifle discussion:

"Which is why they will use propagandistic labels like "socialist" to prevent any discussion."

So who is attaching the socialist label? Oil companies or environmentalists themselves?

It seems to me he objects to the label of socialist, and therefore, by process of elimination, environmentalists must in fact enjoy the capitalist label. Or perhaps "communist".

Just trying to understand to oh-so-complex and apparently subtle intracacies...
Permalink hoser 
March 30th, 2005
I took "The people who make money from fossil fuels" to be the antecedent to the pronoun "They".
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 30th, 2005
Sorry, I meant "they" lowercase.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 30th, 2005
Fresh water depletion might be more serious than climate warming.

Raise in agricultural production and other human consumption is using water deposits that took ages to assemble in a few years.
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
March 30th, 2005
There have been predictions that the next world war will be fought over water.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 30th, 2005
anti-cede this.

I've gotcher muther earth right here...
Permalink hoser 
March 30th, 2005
has plenty of examples of what I am referring to.
Permalink Peter 
March 30th, 2005
Maybe we're not the fittest and will wipe ourselves out.

Anyone who subscribes to an Evolutionary worldview should learn to accept this as a possibility.
Permalink KC 
March 30th, 2005
I figure that sooner or later we'll have a Malthusian solution. A bird flue will mutate into a nastier version of the Spanish Flu, and Earth will lose somewhere between 10% to a third of the human population. Maybe more, depending on virulance. That will put a dent in the use of ecosystem resources.
Permalink Calgarian 
March 31st, 2005
meh. let our kids worry about it.
Permalink Kenny's back 
March 31st, 2005
The kids won't be worried about it, you can't worry about what you don't have.

Permalink trollop 
April 2nd, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics