User Tag List

View Poll Results: Has the environmental movement become a religion?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 37.14%
  • No

    16 45.71%
  • Other (explain)

    6 17.14%
First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 174

  1. #81
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I really doubt climate change is going to cause the extinction of the human race. I'd say it's more likely that nuclear war, a comet, or disease will wipe us off the planet. Humans are very adaptable. Even if we really wrecked the climate, we'd still find a way to survive. I think we grossly overestimate our effect on this planet. Hubris.
    People have survived the plague, planet cooling volcanic eruptions, large amounts of war, etc., but they still cause quite a lot of unwanted death and destruction. Global warming would almost certainly not drive people extinct, but would cause quite a lot of problems for large amounts of people, which is of course unwanted.

    People also already cause a lot of effects on the planet just from doing some sort of everyday economic activities. A lot of forest gets cut down just from people clearing it bit by bit for burning or farms, heat islands in cities, fishing, for example.

  2. #82
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I honestly don't have a problem with cutting back on the reproduction. There 6.6 billion people in the world. That's way too many. I go on and on with theories about all the adverse effects of this giant population, but as you can see, an issue that's basically more solid than mere theory has already been put forward. The environment is screwed by how man people there are.

    So, here are some interesting philosophical questions:

    Is it better for there to be less people who are more happy, or more people who are less happy?

    Is it justified to let society grow now if it guarantees the soon extinction of all people, or nearly all people and society as we know it?

    Some tough questions there, huh?
    I would say "no." The world is far richer now with the 6.6 billion people than it was with half that population 40 years ago. There are individual countries and regions and cities that may be "overpopulated," but birth rates always fall as wealth and leisure time increase. The Earth can accommodate even more people than it has now. Overpopulation will never cause human extinction.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #83
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I would say "no." The world is far richer now with the 6.6 billion people than it was with half that population 40 years ago. There are individual countries and regions and cities that may be "overpopulated," but birth rates always fall as wealth and leisure time increase. The Earth can accommodate even more people than it has now. Overpopulation will never cause human extinction.


    I am sorry mercury but the only perspective that is valid in this topic is chemical one.

    Earth can't support more that 1 - 1.5 billion people without transformaton with time.

  4. #84
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I really doubt climate change is going to cause the extinction of the human race. I'd say it's more likely that nuclear war, a comet, or disease will wipe us off the planet.
    Hence my alternative comment that it would result in most people dying and society as we know it being removed. Living conditions would also be pretty shitty. Good bye beautiful world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Humans are very adaptable. Even if we really wrecked the climate, we'd still find a way to survive. I think we grossly overestimate our effect on this planet. Hubris.
    Hah. It's hubris to think that we can change the planet that much, but it's not hubris to think we can adapt to any circumstances that might be caused by environemental change? I see this the exact opposite way. I see it as arrogant that human beings think their lives are so independant of the conditions of this planet.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #85
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I would say "no." The world is far richer now with the 6.6 billion people than it was with half that population 40 years ago. There are individual countries and regions and cities that may be "overpopulated," but birth rates always fall as wealth and leisure time increase. The Earth can accommodate even more people than it has now. Overpopulation will never cause human extinction.
    Humans can permanently change the environment. This is so obvious.
    It's very clear that perform chemical processes that would not have happened on the earth without us. For instance, there wouldn't be barrels, upon barrels, of pure mercury in the world, without out processing. That mercury would be on surface land and swirling around the ocean either. So, are presence changes things.

    Now, it can also change things permanently. I mean, the mercury itself can't be converted back to its natural state. That's just a little example. As you can see by the histories of Venus and Mars, environmental changes are chain reactions that get pretty out of control. All human beings have to do, is change things faster than the earth would change. That's it. Already, nearly all of the non-organic resources we harvest grow slower than we harvest them. We pump stuff into the air way faster than it can fade out. This of course would change the content of the atmosphere, and alter just about every aspect of meteorology, and so forth. Certain changes can't be reversed. Entropie is not so convenient.

    Remember that it only took very minor adjustments to make an earthlike planet into the ultra-high pressue ball of sulfuric acid that is Venus today.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #86
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Humans can permanently change the environment. This is so obvious.
    It's very clear that perform chemical processes that would not have happened on the earth without us. For instance, there wouldn't be barrels, upon barrels, of pure mercury in the world, without out processing. That mercury would be on surface land and swirling around the ocean either. So, are presence changes things.

    Now, it can also change things permanently. I mean, the mercury itself can't be converted back to its natural state. That's just a little example. As you can see by the histories of Venus and Mars, environmental changes are chain reactions that get pretty out of control. All human beings have to do, is change things faster than the earth would change. That's it. Already, nearly all of the non-organic resources we harvest grow slower than we harvest them. We pump stuff into the air way faster than it can fade out. This of course would change the content of the atmosphere, and alter just about every aspect of meteorology, and so forth. Certain changes can't be reversed. Entropie is not so convenient.

    Remember that it only took very minor adjustments to make an earthlike planet into the ultra-high pressue ball of sulfuric acid that is Venus today.
    None of what you wrote is in any way a probable outcome of the world population growing to, say, 8 billion people, as it is very likely to do in the next 15-20 years.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #87
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I am sorry mercury but the only perspective that is valid in this topic is chemical one.

    Earth can't support more that 1 - 1.5 billion people without transformaton with time.
    Some scientists said the same thing at 3-4 billion people. Where is your evidence to this effect?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #88
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Btw, population is not really the issue with environmental problems. Population growth is greatest in underdeveloped countries, and yet the citizens of these countries have a relatively small environmental impact. It's industrialized countries that have the greatest environmental impact (especially the US), and it's not because we have a growing population. It's simply that we use many more resources per capita than a citizen in an underdeveloped country.

    Controlling population will not solve environmental problems in any significant way. Instead developed countries need to learn ways of using resources in a more environmentally friendly manner.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  9. #89
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Btw, population is not really the issue with environmental problems. Population growth is greatest in underdeveloped countries, and yet the citizens of these countries have a relatively small environmental impact. It's industrialized countries that have the greatest environmental impact (especially the US), and it's not because we have a growing population. It's simply that we use many more resources per capita than a citizen in an underdeveloped country.

    Controlling population will not solve environmental problems in any significant way. Instead developed countries need to learn ways of using resources in a more environmentally friendly manner.
    China is currently the world's #1 polluter, not the U.S.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #90
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I am sorry mercury but the only perspective that is valid in this topic is chemical one.

    Earth can't support more that 1 - 1.5 billion people without transformaton with time.
    Population models show that this is not true. If the world's population were this close to capacity then we would see the population growth rate slow significantly. Furthermore, if the environment were relatively stable the population would simply grow to it's carrying capacity and then have a growth rate close to zero.

    In reality though the carrying capacity is always changing. If it's changing slowly then there is really no problem. The environmental concern is that Earth's carrying capacity will rapidly drop and then lots of people will die all at once.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

Similar Threads

  1. [INTJ] what is it with INTJ's a germanic sounding names/military avatars?
    By Il Morto Qui Parla in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 04-23-2014, 05:10 AM
  2. Is it easier to live a life with or without religion?
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 09-26-2010, 06:25 PM
  3. is it possible to be a peaceful muslim?
    By Il Morto Qui Parla in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 04-23-2010, 09:11 PM
  4. When is it type?
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-25-2007, 01:55 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO