• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

WIll this world be worth living in?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 November 2010 - 02:37 AM


I was only born 44 years ago.

A third of the Amazon is gone already, replaced by wastelands and soy fields. When I was born, the Amazon was still largely intact.

The Indonesian and Asian rainforests are doing much worse, 80% or more gone in many places. When I was born, they were still largely intact.

The "Great American Landscape" is a wasteland of ugly crumbling strip malls. The great Niagara falls is in the middle of a ugly crumbling ghetto. Much of it happened since I was born.

There are almost no true wildernesses any more. Kilimandjaro is covered knee deep in garbage. So is a lot of Alaska. There are plans to pave the Serengeti.

Many of the idyllic places of my childhood have been paved over for living space or commerce. Only the odd one out survives.

It is estimated that half of all living species will be extinct in 100 years.

Our atmosphere is poisoned by carbon dioxide, already irreversibly so, since humanity will never cooperate to address this. As a result of rising CO2, the oceans will soon become an acidified wasteland, as barren as our continents.

Because of human greed and avarice, these problems will not be solved.

What is there left to live for?

Edited by viveutvivas, 08 November 2010 - 02:42 AM.

  • like x 2

#2 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 08 November 2010 - 02:54 AM

Perhaps this video will convince you that there are many beautiful things worth living for (I don't agree entirely with the premise of the video but it's a great demonstration of earth's beauty nonetheless):



  • like x 1

#3 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 08 November 2010 - 03:20 AM

It is estimated that half of all living species will be extinct in 100 years.

Our atmosphere is poisoned by carbon dioxide, already irreversibly so, since humanity will never cooperate to address this. As a result of rising CO2, the oceans will soon become an acidified wasteland, as barren as our continents.

Name a large animal that's gone extinct in the last 50 years.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past. There's no basis for the acidified wasteland bit.
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 08 November 2010 - 11:12 AM

Even without nature, there's still be tons of things that make living worth it. Hell, i wouldn't mind living in a Mars colony if i had to, as long as i was still alive.

#5 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 08 November 2010 - 11:39 AM

Name a large animal that's gone extinct in the last 50 years.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past. There's no basis for the acidified wasteland bit.


West African Black Rhino
The Baiji Dolphin
Pyrenean Ibex

http://dodosgone.blogspot.com/

CO2 levels may have been higher in the very distant past, however, great extinctions were also a bit of a problem in the past........

#6 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 08 November 2010 - 02:09 PM

West African Black Rhino
The Baiji Dolphin
Pyrenean Ibex

That's three. That's not a basis for claiming a 50% extinction rate over the next century.

CO2 levels may have been higher in the very distant past, however, great extinctions were also a bit of a problem in the past........

Animal life in the sea survived just fine through those ages of high CO2.
There have been many extinctions, but it doesn't make sense to attribute that to increased CO2.
  • like x 1

#7 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 November 2010 - 02:45 PM

West African Black Rhino
The Baiji Dolphin
Pyrenean Ibex

That's three. That's not a basis for claiming a 50% extinction rate over the next century.


Can I ask why the size of the organism matters? For every large organism going extinct, there are hundreds if not thousands of smaller ones going extinct.

The loss of biodiversity in landscapes all over the world has already been enormous.

Even if the extinction rate is 10%, maybe you do not realize the enormity of this.

The current extinction rate due to human activity is estimated to be about 100 times the normal background rate.

CO2 levels may have been higher in the very distant past, however, great extinctions were also a bit of a problem in the past........

Animal life in the sea survived just fine through those ages of high CO2.
There have been many extinctions, but it doesn't make sense to attribute that to increased CO2.


Species adapt to gradual changes. Abrupt changes have been accompanied in the past by mass extinctions. The changes over the last 150 years has been abrupt.

Are you trying to get by us that the enormous extinction rate of the past number of years is not due to humans? Sorry, that won't fly.

Already coral reefs are dying (blanching) in places because of higher water acidity and temperature. When they go, whole ecosystems of thousands of species vanish with them.

Shelled organisms in parts of the oceans have already been shown to have weaker and thinner shells due ot higher acidity.

Not to mention that vast areas of the oceans have been reduced to wastelands due to deep trawling.

Frankly, I surely didn't expect to find retarded climate change denial arguments repeated on a somewhat more intelligent science-based forum like this.

Edited by viveutvivas, 08 November 2010 - 02:48 PM.

  • like x 2

#8 robomoon

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 18

Posted 08 November 2010 - 05:11 PM

Better begin with the amount of forests and oceanic spots where biodiversity is high. Are there useful Biodiversity Metrics, like NUMBER OF SPECIES per CUBIC METER some biologists are calculating with? Please explain, I'm not an expert and only a dummy.

If there aren't those Biodiversity Metrics, something in environmental studies must be seriously wrong.

Old rain forests contain a higher biodiversity in any case. So when 1/3 of the Amazon is gone and some places of Asian rainforests are doing much worse with a depletion of 80%, it would be useful to know how much in percent of all the old rainforests has been reduced since the beginning of the 20st Century. Are there Rainforest Metrics to see how much of all the old rainforest in percent (like 5%, 10%, or 30%) has been reduced globally? It would be important to know how much of the old rainforest has been left globally after 100 years during the end of the 20st Century. Please explain, I'm not an expert and only a dummy.

If there aren't those Rainforest Metrics available, something in environmental studies must be seriously wrong.

Next to exploitive farming, the ghettos and garbage in former beautifully developed landscapes make things worse. So it must be stated that sufficiently advanced food production, vertical housing, and adequate waste removal are missing over there. There aren't adequate living resources to save important nature from destruction.

Currently, measures like atmospheric CO2 and extinct large animals can be taken out of the calculation - oversight about a sincere preservation of biodiversified places is sure enough to worry about. Regarding space travel, a scientific supercomputer grid on the moon will become useful to solve these environmental problems during this Century instead of misguided economic stunts like a human colonization effort on Mars.

#9 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 08 November 2010 - 05:22 PM

The current extinction rate due to human activity is estimated to be about 100 times the normal background rate.
And how is this estimated ?

Already coral reefs are dying (blanching) in places because of higher water acidity and temperature. When they go, whole ecosystems of thousands of species vanish with them. Any evidence that this is more than a local trend ?

Shelled organisms in parts of the oceans have already been shown to have weaker and thinner shells due ot higher acidity. Do you have more than anecdotal data for this ?

Not to mention that vast areas of the oceans have been reduced to wastelands due to deep trawling. Yes, overfishing is a problem, unrelated to AGW.

Frankly, I surely didn't expect to find retarded climate change denial arguments repeated on a somewhat more intelligent science-based forum like this.


The evidence for AGW(and indeed Global Warming) is seriously lacking.
And sometimes the mainstream science is just wrong, like say nutrition.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#10 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 08 November 2010 - 09:09 PM

To assert that global warming is man-made is a very bold statement....

However, we should still strive for greener technologies because we can see that many of our current technologies cause harm in ways other than global warming. One example of this is deforestation, which we only do because we haven't figured out a clever substitute for wood/paper that won't cause environmental damage.

Edited by Elus, 08 November 2010 - 09:14 PM.

  • like x 1

#11 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 November 2010 - 10:34 PM

To assert that global warming is man-made is a very bold statement....

However, we should still strive for greener technologies because we can see that many of our current technologies cause harm in ways other than global warming. One example of this is deforestation, which we only do because we haven't figured out a clever substitute for wood/paper that won't cause environmental damage.


Most rainforest loss nowadays is not from the wood or the paper industry.

For example, vast areas of the Amazon have been burned down or bulldozed to plant soy. You can drive for days in the former Amazon and only see flat and featureless fields, like the U.S. Midwest. Much of this soy goes to the U.S. and other industrialized countries to feed livestock, so we have to share responsibility for these environmental crimes when we eat chicken or beef here in the North.

Sorry, I am not going to have the manmade global warming argument here. Only a few kooks and rejects in the scientific world still believe that a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the age of industrialization is not having a long term effect on climate. The consensus is clear, and it is fact, not hypothesis.

Robomoon, these metrics certainly exist and can be obtained by some googling.

Edited by viveutvivas, 08 November 2010 - 10:34 PM.

  • dislike x 2

#12 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 08 November 2010 - 10:36 PM

Knowing correlation is the major road to understanding causality.

And we are not halfway the road of knowing correlation regarding environmental issues.

Obtaining political gain from extrapolated incomplete knowledge seems to be part of the game. But is this acceptable from a viewpoit of unbiased scientific research? It maybe is if it is used to change an existing bias, but at the moment it becomes the new "political correct" bias it is not. And this is exactly what is happening. Huge political polarization pared with the fact that certain political movements need renewed proof for their existing fading dogma's does not help. Adapting dogma's, e.g. after the emancipation of the working class is almost competed in the western world, is to much to ask?

I get a strong feeling that the biological diversity argument is being used to keep the diversity of development of humanity within limited managed boundaries. Strange paradox?

At the other side of the coin there is the matter of strange economics. I fail to understand why a burger, obtained from cows that are fed with soy from the other side of the planet with huge additional misuse of resources, costs 1 euro (1,30 $), while a decent portion of fresh honestly raised vegetables costs at least double or triple that price?

How does the political polarisation fuelled with all kinds of pessimism help to solve these issues? Why are we unable to change political paradigms in favor of finding a real solution in stead of continuing the extrovert political bullfights?

#13 Kolos

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Warszawa

Posted 08 November 2010 - 11:43 PM

I never been in the Amazon or Indonesian rainforests so their impact on my life is close to 0 but there are many relatively wild places not far from where I live and I'm quite sure Kilimandjaro is not burried in garbage just yet, actually I'm surprised OP didn't mention Aral Sea or Chernobyl which were real disasters rather than crumbling streep malls but I guess it's his (very) subjective perception.
Anyway why should I care about wildlife so much? As long as it benefits humanity it's ok but I wouldn't see much problem with destroying all non-human life on earth if we can benefit from such a move, ecology should be practical but unfortunately for many activists it became a form of religion and that's what I call pathology. A lot of them seem to have luddite mindset, they hate civilization and industrialization in particular.
  • dislike x 4

#14 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 09 November 2010 - 12:08 AM

For example, vast areas of the Amazon have been burned down or bulldozed to plant soy. You can drive for days in the former Amazon and only see flat and featureless fields, like the U.S. Midwest. Much of this soy goes to the U.S. and other industrialized countries to feed livestock, so we have to share responsibility for these environmental crimes when we eat chicken or beef here in the North.

Sorry, I am not going to have the manmade global warming argument here. Only a few kooks and rejects in the scientific world still believe that a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the age of industrialization is not having a long term effect on climate. The consensus is clear, and it is fact, not hypothesis.

Robomoon, these metrics certainly exist and can be obtained by some googling.


Soy is a curse. I don't eat soy, 95% of the meat I eat is soy free.

Yeah, yeah. We'll skip the argument, but it's a fraud none the less. Consensus doesn't make it fact.

#15 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 09 November 2010 - 01:14 AM

Sorry, I am not going to have the manmade global warming argument here. Only a few kooks and rejects in the scientific world still believe that a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the age of industrialization is not having a long term effect on climate. The consensus is clear, and it is fact, not hypothesis.


Alright, then perhaps one of us should make a thread about it. I'd love to debate this. Keep in mind, I'm a pro-environment kind of guy. It's just that I don't see compelling evidence for man-made global warming.

I think there would be great merit in a thread discussing this controversy. And yes, it is a controversial issue.
  • like x 1

#16 robomoon

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 18

Posted 09 November 2010 - 11:09 AM

What's so strange in economics should be limited to the topic of food production to keep focused on the problem: soy. No scientists at CERN must be employed to figure out this farming problem. No human or animal should be harmed with a fundamental conclusion: what's strange in economy are animal breeders who supply meat, milk, hides, other animal remains, etc., to other industries, traders, and consumers.

Soy, a vegetable with a high nutrition value from protein should not be replaced by other vegetables with lower nutrition value. Carrots are fine, but FRESH is no summa summarum of all the nutrition value required in good food.

The final argument only boils down to this: the nutrition value of meat. Now, what does the higher educated thinktank say? Oh, nothing biased, some are vegetarians, but as dull as I am, I believe everything in every popular scientific article from them on my desk. And I can "search" for metrics - to repeat it without using a commercial "g"-word? Gimme a break, put some artificial meat or fish surrogate largely made from vertical farming resources on the table!

#17 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 November 2010 - 04:29 PM

Anyway why should I care about wildlife so much? As long as it benefits humanity it's ok but I wouldn't see much problem with destroying all non-human life on earth if we can benefit from such a move, ...


Given this attitude, no wonder Central/Eastern Europe is such a shithole.
  • like x 1

#18 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 November 2010 - 04:33 PM

Yeah, yeah. We'll skip the argument, but it's a fraud none the less.


Can I ask what are your scientific qualifications entitling you to make this assertion?

There is no controversy, except that created by the oil industry for political gain. The Bush administration's "We create our own reality" kind of thinking.
  • like x 2

#19 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:25 PM

Can I ask what are your scientific qualifications entitling you to make this assertion?

There is no controversy, except that created by the oil industry for political gain. The Bush administration's "We create our own reality" kind of thinking.


Oh, there's plenty of controversy.

There's controversy over:
Whether the tree ring data is actually a proxy for temperature.
The accuracy of temperature stations, and the data processing involved.
The accuracy of simulations showing x degrees of warming over the next century.
Hiding the unprocessed data and code used to manipulate it, to the extent of dodging FOIA requests.
The scaremongering by politicians and environmentalists to scare us into limiting CO2.

Plus, look at the treatment of anyone skeptical of AGW, like Bjorn Lomborg and Steve McIntyre.

Put all that together, and it sure sounds like bad science to me.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#20 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:36 PM

Oh, there's plenty of controversy.


You mentioned skepticism over vitamin studies.

Regarding the so-called controversy over climate research manufactured by oil interests, I would urge you to do the same thing as when you evaluate vitamin studies by pharmaceutical interests, which is: Follow the money.

Edited by viveutvivas, 09 November 2010 - 06:36 PM.

  • like x 1

#21 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:38 PM

You mentioned skepticism over vitamin studies.

Regarding the so-called controversy over climate research manufactured by oil interests, I would urge you to do the same thing as when you evaluate vitamin studies by pharmaceutical interests, which is: Follow the money.


I'm pretty sure Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and Bjorn Lomborg are not funded by oil interests.
  • like x 1

#22 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:43 PM

Anyway why should I care about wildlife so much? As long as it benefits humanity it's ok but I wouldn't see much problem with destroying all non-human life on earth if we can benefit from such a move, ...


Given this attitude, no wonder Central/Eastern Europe is such a shithole.


Well, I still prefer living in a shithole with runing water and sanitation over an estethically impressive shithole where you can dhiarrhea yourself to death.

#23 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 09 November 2010 - 07:55 PM

Regarding the so-called controversy over climate research manufactured by oil interests, I would urge you to do the same thing as when you evaluate vitamin studies by pharmaceutical interests, which is: Follow the money.


Just so you know, there's not much independent research in this subject. It's just a handful of people poking huge holes into mainstream climate research.
  • like x 1

#24 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 November 2010 - 08:00 PM

Well, I still prefer living in a shithole with runing water and sanitation over an estethically impressive shithole where you can dhiarrhea yourself to death.


You are committing the logic fallacy called false dichotomy.

Edited by viveutvivas, 09 November 2010 - 08:01 PM.


#25 firespin

  • Guest
  • 116 posts
  • 50
  • Location:The Future

Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:38 PM

Nature have done far more damage to the environment and brought to extinction to far more animals than man has ever done, and will continue to do so after humans are no longer on this planet. There have been several world-wide extinctions more worse than what killed off the dinosaurs way before humans even existed. Some how nature is still around. Man is not going to destroy nature, only nature will do so itself one day. (Unless man saves it)

Some of these doom-gloom of the environment is way over-blown, and don't have enough data to support them. They often are bias studies meant to pull on people's emotions to support a agenda. A example is human overpopulation. Every human being on the planet can leave in Texas with enough room, and yet somehow there is a danger of overpopulation? The populations of developed countries are also shrinking, standards of living are increasing for everyone because of the increase of technology and education. There is enough food, water, and housing for everyone on the planet with plenty left over. The current reasons there are poor countries is because of corrupt governments, (most which are also socialist/ or communists) this can be solved if the governments were changed.

Edited by firespin, 09 November 2010 - 10:27 PM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#26 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 November 2010 - 11:12 PM

Nature have done far more damage to the environment and brought to extinction to far more animals than man has ever done, ...


This is not even relevant. Mankind is currently causing the extinction of huge numbers of species, and in many cases cutting our own throat in the process. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Yet you are saying all that destruction is okay because it happened before.

Would you then agree that because humans, through human nature, have always killed humans throughout history, it is therefore okay to commit murder becasue it happened before and is in our nature? Same kind of argument.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 2

#27 nowayout

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 November 2010 - 11:16 PM

Just so you know, there's not much independent research in this subject. It's just a handful of people poking huge holes into mainstream climate research.


What do you mean by independent research. Climate scientists all over the world in scores of independent universities have come to a consensus that man-made climate change is real.

Or by independent do you just mean dissenting? Well, in that case you will probably like Duesberg, the HIV denier, or the number of Holocaust deniers. The fact that these people dissent against overwhelming evidence does not make them right.
  • like x 1

#28 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 10 November 2010 - 12:32 AM

What do you mean by independent research. Climate scientists all over the world in scores of independent universities have come to a consensus that man-made climate change is real.


That's the thing. Climate science is controlled by the gatekeepers, who will keep dissenters out. This is groupthink plain and simple. No one wants to threaten the billions of dollars of funding for this field.

The dissenters have not been given the unprocessed data to reproduce the results of key papers from scratch. This points to something being rotten.
  • like x 1

#29 Kolos

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Warszawa

Posted 10 November 2010 - 12:35 AM

The current reasons there are poor countries is because of corrupt governments, (most which are also socialist/ or communists) this can be solved if the governments were changed.

I agree with most of your post but reasons why there are poor countries are far more complicated... Sometimes even relatively good government can't do much because peoples mentality is too conservative, there is no tradition of high work ethic and responsibility and/or there is instability related with ethnic/religious confilcts. Italy is rich not because Berlusconi is such a genious etc. As for "communist" countries there are few of them left if any. You can change government in like 5 years(in democratic country) but it takes decades or even generations to change mentality of a nation.

This is not even relevant. Mankind is currently causing the extinction of huge numbers of species, and in many cases cutting our own throat in the process. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Yet you are saying all that destruction is okay because it happened before.

Even if it is true what is so bad about this? It happened many times without human intervention, in fact there would be no humans if it didn't happen 65 milion years ago so I would say this type of "destructions" are quite normal, they push life into new directions and we already see how different organism adapt to man-made environment. By the way I'm still waiting for my explenation why should I care about plants or ants without any higher feelings or self-consciousness more than I do about minerals and metals. But I guess you prefer to insult my mother this time...

Edited by Kolos, 10 November 2010 - 12:38 AM.

  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 November 2010 - 12:50 AM

Yeah, yeah. We'll skip the argument, but it's a fraud none the less. Consensus doesn't make it fact.

You aren't skipping the argument if you take a couple shots like that.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users