PDA

View Full Version : Environmental damage seen from shuttle



cran
2005-Aug-06, 12:29 AM
Environmental damage seen from shuttle (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/08/04/shuttle.earth.environment.reut/index.html)

Might have something to say about human impact....
from my news email from CNN Aug 6 2005

jkmccrann
2005-Dec-05, 04:21 PM
I guess seeing this type of thing from the shuttle is one way to spread the problem around and hopefully address it as best we can in a co-operative manner.

Taks
2005-Dec-05, 09:10 PM
problem?

there are 6 billion (that's a 6 followed by 9 zeros) people on this planet and the elitest crowd thinks we shouldn't have some noticeable impact on the earth visible from space? what exactly does the phrase "take care of the earth" mean? really, should we stop building homes made of wood? we want to improve the conditions of the poor in various third world countries but we can't build dams to improve their economic lot in life because they "damage" the environment. don't humans count as part of the environment? shouldn't we, as a species, consider ourselves as worthy of saving above poor little bambi and pine trees?

more alarmism that ends up driving policies that keep people poor and in the end damage the environment even more. perhaps the money we waste on "preservation" would be put to better use developing technologies that make us more efficient, or reduce our reliance on our precious environment...

taks

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-05, 09:19 PM
perhaps the money we waste on "preservation" would be put to better use developing technologies that make us more efficient, or reduce our reliance on our precious environment...

Screw the animals, only think about the humans, eh? Wipe out all species but one?

It's elitist viewpoints like this that really get me angry.

Taks
2005-Dec-05, 09:32 PM
Screw the animals, only think about the humans, eh? Wipe out all species but one?did i say that? or did i say that maybe we need to think about ourselves also.


It's elitist viewpoints like this that really get me angry.that's a bunch of **. how is it elitist to think that i should protect myself, as well as my species, above all else? self preservation is a natural instinct of all species.

to call such opinions elitist should be what angers people.

the "elitist" opinion is that mother earth, or gaia, should be worshipped. this is ridiculous as we are part of nature, we are part of the entire ecosystem. they forget we have a place too.

taks

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-05, 10:04 PM
But you just said that we should get rid of all the preservation projects. There's a reason they exist; mainly to prevent the extinction of other species. Our technology has an impact, and it's impossible to ignore that. Yes, I think we should work to lessen the impacts we have by becoming more efficient with what we have (Such as, for instance, using nuclear power instead of fossil fuels in power plants).

As for the whole "Survival of the species", my main problem comes with the idea that it's "Us or them!" -- humans or the animals. That's not true. Also, we're evolving beyond simple "instinct", and are able to see beyond just ourselves -- that is something I support. Blinding ourselves to the damage that we do, like the visibility our damage has on the ecosystem, solves nothing.

Taks
2005-Dec-05, 10:19 PM
But you just said that we should get rid of all the preservation projects.please quote the relevant section where i said this.


There's a reason they exist; mainly to prevent the extinction of other species.or to promote some alarmist agenda. or to control resources in order to implement some sort of agenda.


As for the whole "Survival of the species", my main problem comes with the idea that it's "Us or them!" -- humans or the animals.where did i say it was? the problem with saying human impact is a problem is the alarmists saying it's "us or them" and then choosing them.


Also, we're evolving beyond simple "instinct", and are able to see beyond just ourselves -- that is something I support. Blinding ourselves to the damage that we do, like the visibility our damage has on the ecosystem, solves nothing.a) irrelevant that we're evolving beyond instinct. it is a birthright to want to survive. b) referring to "damage" to the environment is taking the preconceived notion that our impact is automatically bad. in other words, your statement assumes the outcome. a tautology.

i agree that not everything we do is a good thing. certainly dumping raw waste into the drinking supply has the potential for more harm than good. however, somewhere along the line we need to realize that such things will happen until the time we are capable of dealing with them in an manner that makes sense economically (as well as politically, socially, etc...). saying that deforestation is bad, for example, is ridiculous when one considers the net benefit (affordable housing, maybe?) and then goes on to note that we don't just leave the land barren, we replant.

taks

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-05, 11:02 PM
please quote the relevant section where i said this.

Relevant section:


perhaps the money we waste on "preservation" would be put to better use developing technologies that make us more efficient, or reduce our reliance on our precious environment...

Right, you don't want to get rid of preservation projects, you just think that we "waste" money on them.


or to promote some alarmist agenda. or to control resources in order to implement some sort of agenda.

So all preservations are to "control resources" and "implement some sort of agenda"? It seems to me like you take a few extremes, and then assume they're all like that.


where did i say it was? the problem with saying human impact is a problem is the alarmists saying it's "us or them" and then choosing them.


shouldn't we, as a species, consider ourselves as worthy of saving above poor little bambi and pine trees?

Right, so "poor little bambi and the pine trees" aren't "Them" at all.


a) irrelevant that we're evolving beyond instinct. it is a birthright to want to survive.

Though not necessarily at the expense of all else.


b) referring to "damage" to the environment is taking the preconceived notion that our impact is automatically bad. in other words, your statement assumes the outcome. a tautology.

And you've assumed that our "damage" is automatically good, unavoidable, and without alternatives, period, end of question, and that only the "alarmists" say otherwise.


i agree that not everything we do is a good thing. certainly dumping raw waste into the drinking supply has the potential for more harm than good.

Agreed.


however, somewhere along the line we need to realize that such things will happen until the time we are capable of dealing with them in an manner that makes sense economically (as well as politically, socially, etc...).

Which makes the assumption that there are no alternatives that make sense economically (as well as politically, socially, etc...).


saying that deforestation is bad, for example, is ridiculous when one considers the net benefit (affordable housing, maybe?) and then goes on to note that we don't just leave the land barren, we replant.

Surely you'd agree that there has to be some limit to deforestation. It's not like oxygen grows on trees... oh, wait! (Sorry, couldn't resist a joke).

Seriously, though, there's always a limit to how far we can take things; sure, there are alarmists and extremists, but not everyone that is for the environment is one.

ASEI
2005-Dec-06, 12:53 AM
Surely you'd agree that there has to be some limit to deforestation. It's not like oxygen grows on trees... oh, wait! (Sorry, couldn't resist a joke).
Deforestation is somewhat of a sham issue. The forests are not the "lungs of the planet" like we all learned in grade school. Algae in the ocean and oceanic plants recycle most of the oxygen. Furthermore, any spot in the midwest where we haven't been mowing has become overgrown with trees. The only forests that were ever in danger of deforestation were old growth forests. Pine trees grow like weeds.


And you've assumed that our "damage" is automatically good, unavoidable, and without alternatives, period, end of question, and that only the "alarmists" say otherwise.
Most of the damage that alarmists cite is. The endangerment of the "rainbow trout" by hydroelectric dams, for example. Rainbow trout ended up being indistinguishable from other varieties of trout. Furthermore, it isn't automatically good. Environmental changes can be good because they're good for humanity. As humans, we should be concerned with humanity first.

hewhocaves
2005-Dec-06, 06:40 AM
If we were a species that used the environment wisely, i would agree that things like environmentalists and envioenmental protections were unnecessary and alarmist.

However, we live in a capitalist, market driven society. For every person willing to sit down and think rationally about the long term impacts of society there is at least one person perfectly willing to strip mine a mountain or flood a valley to save a buck on his bottom line.

The state that I came from, NJ, has been criticized in recent years for both spending too much on the environment and not enough on the environment. most of the land acquisition is in the western parts of the state as the state tries to create an artificial buffer zone between NYC and the Poconos. But the amazing thing is that there is prime real estate in Newark and Perth Amboy that sits rotting because we've spoiled it so much environmentally and culturally that no one wants to live there. So rather than reuse the places we've already altered we go out and rebuild the same infrastructure, pollution, businesses and housing ten, twenty, fifty miles away. It's a needless, senseless, self-sustaining stupid waste.

And don't even get me started on the nastiness of pollution underground. Look up the story of Hidden River Cave in Horse Cave Kentucky. For decades the cave was literally an open sewer, with discolored water and no life whatsoever inside it. If you were foolheardy enough to venture in, you would get to a point upstream where the river forks. To the right was this milky, creamy viscous goo fillinf one tributary while to the left was a pristine stream.
Cave animals that ventured too far downstream in the pristine section literally died within minutes.

no, its clear that left alone business and industry would render this planet unliveable within a few generations.

john

Eric Vaxxine
2005-Dec-06, 04:33 PM
I think nature could outplay us all, with no remorse.
(Volcanism, tectonic upheaval etc etc) I have some reservation about our importance in shaping this planet. No doubt we have some impact, being top of the food chain, but no species would miss us if we all moved to Mars!