It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming: Save the Planet or Ourselves??

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
My question is this, are all of the tree huggers out there trying to save the planet or themselves?

I would be willing to bet that it's pretty safe to say that we aren't going to destroy this planet. Of all our vehicles emissions, pollution, wmd's and any other significant impact we have as a species are absolutely no match for the fury of Mother Earth once she is pushed too far. One good global superstorm and we are gone, along with all of our pollution.

So, that makes me have to wonder. Why don't we change our Earth "saver" slogans to "Save the Earth: For Us".

The only true harm I see coming from our overall polution for the species is making the planet uninhabitable for us. I think that it has been seen time and time again that animal and plant life are far more resilient than we are and for this reason, I have to believe that we are being a bit more than egotistical to think that we can even have a true long term effect on even the plant and animal species on this planet.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we don't have the power to eradicate whole species of life on this planet, of course we are capable of that. But to destroy the Earth for all living things? I see that as being a bit of wishful thinking.

I guess my ultimate question is, Are our environmental "crusades" acts of compassion? or selfishness?


Jasn




posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I don't think it's so clear cut as that.

There are those who our doing it only for 'selfish' reasons, but I would say they are a
minority since AICC will more affect future Generations more than it will the majority
of generations living today.

However if you count those who want to save/protect future generations as the same,
than I'd say it probably increases.

I would have to say that those who do it purely for the environment our in the minority
as well, probably the same amount as the previous group.

The largest group though are those people who are doing it for both reasons,
since most people are'nt so selfish or Humanocentric to only care about Humanity,
nor are there a great deal that would put everything before Humanity.


Myself personally, I'm part of the both reasons group, but not for my own survival,
but the survival of Humanity and all life on the planet.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I personally go out of my way to pollute as much as possible without hurting the beauty of the planet. (Ie: I don't throw my trash on the highways and such)




I like to think that I'm leaving a cause for my future generations so they too can feel good about themselves.


Jasn



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SimiusDei
 


I never try to save the planey nor pollute it. I say that no matter what the planet is going to be inhabitable @ 1 point in time. These treehuggers pretty much only hug the tree to save them, not the tree. It is all Selfishness.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Saving Ourselves

Oh, we're not saving the planet. You're right; we probably can't do much to affect the planet, or alter ongoing planetary processes more than slightly (and temporarily). It's ourselves (and our cohabitants in the current planetary biosphere) that we're trying to save.

A lot of New Age tree-huggers who proclaim their support for the Gaia hypothesis (which conceives of Earth as a single giant organism made up of all the other organisms living on it) would be surprised to learn that James Lovelock, the originator of the hypothesis, actually made this point in his famous book Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth.

Pity this thread has been so neglected. If I were you, O Ape of God, I should alter the headline to get rid of the lead-balloon phrase 'global warming', which for most people nowadays is like a flashing neon sign that says 'this is boring'.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimiusDei
I personally go out of my way to pollute as much as possible without hurting the beauty of the planet. (Ie: I don't throw my trash on the highways and such)




I like to think that I'm leaving a cause for my future generations so they too can feel good about themselves.


Jasn


If highways are your idea of beauty, not trees, probably therein lies your problem.

Lovelock wrote Giaia because the Earth shows all of the characteristics of life bar one. Reproduction. But once we colonise other planets, then that problem is sorted.

As for selfishness, yes, I want my family alive in 100 years, but no, if we do destroy ourselves, I want other species to be able to survive.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SimiusDei
 


Absolutely not. For me it is spiritual. I do want to save it for ourselves in that I want my son to be able to see the beautiful things I have. But it is not personal. I feel it is an obligation and a duty.
That we are beholden to bigger things.
That we shouldn't be pooping in our own mess kit if you know what I mean.

I love the attitude that humans are not capable of destruction on a mass scale.
Condiering that something invisible to the eye such as a virus can wipe out half of any species population in months, it is not all that inconcievable of a thought.

As I have stated before, this earth isn't that large. It is less then 8k miles around. Adn there are 6 BILLION of us.

Some may argue that in iself is not a large enough number to do damage. But it is the extraordinary amount of resources we use to survive.

Just look at how many resources are used just for the basic conveinances. It is STAGGERING.

Go to your cupboard and get out a jar of peanut butter. In itself, it doesn't look like much. But consider what it took for you to have it:

Fields of peanuts had to be planted.Land had to be plowed over to create that field. Machines are used to harvest them. A factory had to be built to create those machines. Then they had to be shipped to the processing plant. Roads had to be paved for trucks to haul the peanuts. Then a factory had to be built to turn the peanuts into butter. A factory had to be created to make the asphalt, a factory had to be built to create the paving machines, and so on. A factory had to be built to make the plastic jar it is in . A factory had to be built to make the label. The pb was put in the jar to be shipped to the stores. More trucks and oil miles. Then there is the box that had to be created in another factory to haul it in. Most likely it was used once and thrown away. Then you had to drive to the store, purchase it. A factory had to be built to make the little plastic bag you put it in. More gas and oil miles to drive it home. How about all the energy it took to run these factories? Water and power plants had to be built to sustain them. A factory was built and used resources so you can have your car.Then many people eat it and not recycle the container. All that for a cheap sandwhich. Then the container has to be hauled away, and landfilled. More resources.
Consider this same process for the bread and jelly.

Look around your home and look at the infinite number of items and the mass amount of resources it took for every single one.

These are the processes that we know about. There is an infinite number of processes going on that we are not aware of. The paper work for the farmers. The paperwork for the USDA. The labs running quality control to make sure it is safe. The pesticides created to keep bugs from eating the peanuts. The list goes on.

This whole thought that we are selfish for thinking we can do that much damage is selfish for thinking we can't. The blaise attitude was the attitude of previous generations that the earth is infinite.

Even if we don't completely obliterate everything, it will be changed, and changed permanently.
And most likely what will be left behind will not be as pleasant.

And I like the way things are.

We may not be able to destroy every little thing in the ocean but I want to see dolphins and whales and tuna. Not just jelly fish.

I want to be able to see bears and moose in Yellowstone. Not just an overbundance of squirrels.

I want my son to be able to see the breathtaking red rock of Sedona. Not a smog haze and huge homes.

We may not be able to destroy everything but we can certainly destroy what is important.

Think we can't cause mass problems?

We have all heard about the American buffalo being hunted till extinction.

We hear less how many Native American tribes nearly starved to death from having their main staple removed.

What almost everyone doesn't know that it caused bad erosion problems afterwards. Because when the buffalo would run across the prairie, their cloven hooves would create divets in the impermeable prairie grass allowing the water to percolate through.
When the buffalo were gone they were not their to do natures erosion control and the water started sheeting off and forming floods.

There were only a few thousand buffalo hunters. But those few thousand managed to take an animal that weighed a ton and hunt it to extinction in 50 years. There was an estimated 30-120 million buffalo. Buffalo Bill Cody single handedly killed 4k in 2 years.
so if a few hunters can make a one ton animal disappear in 50 years. Imagine what 6 billion people can do to a planet.


And all that prairie? That would take weeks to travel across? The same prairie mention by Laura Wilder? Only 1% of that prairie remains today. It was all developed for agriculture.

Is the buffalo gone? No. But only a few thousand live in natural parks. And that was only because someone interfered and saved a few before total extinction. This all happened 120 years ago. And mother nature hasn't managed to put 30 million buffalo and an entire prairie back.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
When all the animals are total extinct and only human live on the planet, (human eat out all other animals,) it is better?



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I thought people weren't calling it "global warming" anymore since people are starting to realize we are having no real effect on heating this planet? I thought the new phrase was "climate change".

Honestly this whole this is a scam in my opinion. I think it falls along the lines as mentioned earlier as some sort of egotistical problem. Humans can't help but think our short period of time on this planet has somehow ruined it with our "evil" ways. A lot of people can't seem to grasp that humans are not the life or death of this planet. Earth survived millions of years without humans, and will continue to survive long after we are gone.

Climate change, or global warming, is kind of like some sort of fake charity that people are buying into without researching it and getting the facts. It's set up only to make certain individuals feel better about themselves, while making others the bad guys.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I sometimes use the term climate change to refer to the changes in the Earths Climate or changes to weather patterns . The notion that humans are causing climate change is fraudulent I have no doubt about that. While were dealing with the Al Gore led fraud that will cost me money we are not developing GM crops that can grow in places like Africa and other things that could deal with the problems at hand .

Peak Food is more of a concern to me then the global warming fraud . When Global Warming bottoms itself out NZ emission trading scheme wont go away nor will I get the money back it has cost me . I refuse to buy a product just because it is good for the environment . An environmentally product has to match the quality of an existing product.

I brought one of those light bulbs that are spouse to last longer. I dropped it on the carpet in my caravan and it shattered. There is no way I am going to buy one of those bulbs again in its current form.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I'll agree with you that there are most definitely more important things going on right now than the phony global warming. I'll also agree with you that it's only purpose is to take our money away.

And you can guarantee it will get worse if Obama or Clinton is elected president. I could be wrong here and will check the facts in a second, but I believe it was Obama who had previously proposed adding ANOTHER tax onto gasoline to help offset the effects of global warming.

These carbon credits and global warming offsets are ridiculous and should not be imposed on people. Especially when a majority of people don't even believe in it!



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join