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.

 

Oceans in distress foreshadow mass extinction

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
CO2 has nothing to do with it? Why don't people look at what happens when you increase the acidity of the ocean. The oceans absorb an enourmous amount of our emissions. If you didn't know that and you deny anthropogenic climate change, better check your motivations and decision making ability.

Its egotistical to think that we aren't completely destroying our habitat along with that of most other species.

It takes a lot of time and knowledge to piece it all together, but when you do it is clear as day.

IF some vestige of humanity is able to survive, they will hate our way of life. Lets hope that some of the groundwork being done in environmental science and sustainability will help intelligent life come back to build a responsible system.

The Earth is finite, you can't grow forever. I'm going to laugh my arse off when those who have profited so much from the destruction of our planet realise that they are destroying the future for their own descendants.

I have already accepted what is coming. Enjoy your life and be true to yourself. The boulder is already rolling down hill.

Don't believe in anthropogenic climate change and environmental destruction? You obviously haven't educated yourself, or are living in denial. For example, how much money do you think the lead authors of the IPCC reports receive? Compare that to how much money big business, big oil, and associated think tanks put into discrediting those who only want the destruction to end. It isn't about greed, its about survival. Taxes and trading schemes are simply a mechanism to reduce our impacts using the only language that modern economies understand; money and free markets.

Its all going to crumble before anything changes, its a foregone conclusion.
edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by lifecitizen
 


We are terrible consumers -- consume, consume, consume... then throw it away (or recycle it) without any regard for where our junk ends up, the life it causes damage to, and the long-term effects that it leaves on this planet. It's quite terrible. I work in the IT industry and have enacted recycling programs - that put old technology to use - at my previous employers because that's the only way that i can sleep at night knowing that most large operation "recycling" programs, end up shipping those electronics to China, dumping them in villages and then the people just chip off the usable metals.

Google china junk towns.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


There have been developments that are going to make e-recycling a hell of a lot cheaper through automation.

Notice how the development was driven by the availability of rare earth metals and not environmental impacts?

Automated e-recycling by hitachi

edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


I couldn't agree more with your post -- especially on the ignorance of people with this issue, and their inability to see beyond the propaganda that's fed to them from corporations.

The current crisis of the environment is a direct byproduct of 100ish years of corporate PR, Marketing and Advertisement. All in the name of greed, economic slavery and keeping the corporate succubi alive at the expense of the world's future.

It started just after WW1 when corporations were trying to figure out how to keep the factories going so that the economy wouldn't tank, and thus mass manipulation (advertisement) became a field of profession started by Mr. Edward Bernes. (Sigmund Freud's nephew) and has snowballed into what we see today... a world of narcissistic, mindless, consumers that couldn't care less that the plastic toys they churn through every quarter take 100's of years to be reabsorbed by the planet.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


Yes yes and yes...

You know the thing that amazes me is the amount of people who will simply ignore this thread. A thread that is based on science and predicts that a global catastrophe is about to unfold.

Funny, because if you say that a global catastrophe is about to unfold, but use an argument based on pseudo-science or wild speculation, (Reptilians, Planet Nibiru, 2012, Chem trails, Alien attack) you will have hundreds of replies, flags and stars.

Our hunger for fantasy and escapism knows no bounds... Even if it means ignoring a very real threat to humanity by replacing it with fantasy ones.

What a strange species we are!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


Notice how they also don't go into any specifics on how they're going to achieve this, beyond saying that a machine will do the work?

Would be nice if they put those brains to work on solving the global issues of plastic, and stryofoam too. But as long as there's enough petro in the ground to keep the consumer appetite sated, then the ROI (return on investment) on a new technology to help with environmental impact would cut into the CEO's bonus a few million too much.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 


With all of the alternate realities, based in fantasy, that are pushed onto human consciousness in today's world, it isn't that hard to believe that the average person is more apt towards believing "end-of-the-world" scenarios based on fantasy, than on reality.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


We cant forget the newest poison to our ocean

vimeo.com...

11,500,000 litres of Radioactive seawater...

This world is #ed, We are as a species. Time to turn off your tv's, radios, video games and learn about yourself, because thats what they've been stopping for a long time.


edit on 22-6-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


I totally agree that ROI is a major barrier. Anyone who has been involved in a financial decision making committee or have seen a report produced by consultants will see what we mean.

I do think that this technology is legitimate though (that link was the first on a google search, but I know it has been reported on many green news websites), mainly due to the decreasing availability of rare earth metals and Chinese domination of the market. That being said, the environmental benefits are simply a convenient by-product of the proposed technology.

You can break down plastics to recover fuel oil through pyrolysis, however it is expensive and not a whole lot of people are doing it.
edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Something slightly more on topic...

Check out the FAO website and have a look at how much of the world's population rely on fisheries (and increasingly so over time) for food.

FAO World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010



Globally, fish provides more than 1.5 billion people with almost 20 percent of their average per capita intake of animal protein, and 3.0 billion people with at least 15 percent of such protein.


Then you have GM Atlantic Salmon. While I'm not 100% against GM foods, I often wonder how many people actually think that is a viable solution. Its yet another case of treating the symptoms and not the cause.

The problem with genetically modified salmon



Wild salmon require so much work: they need clean water, a bountiful ocean and restraint to ensure that they aren’t fished out of existence. Vigilance, and a small amount of sacrifice — what a drag.




edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


Exctally -- ROI of this type of program is calculated based on dollars, and not on environmental savings. If it was, then we wouldn't be in this quagmire. The governments of the world need to dump billions into R&D towards better recycling programs, or else this will be the end of mankind, and it isn't going to be that far into the future.

I feel like this video is appropriate for the thread.




edit: on the topic of genetically modified foods... they are a necessary evil in the current flow of supply/demand for the world. There are better technologies out, that can increase the production of food to meet today's demands, but (once again) the cost of converting the world's farmland to these systems is far outweighed by the cost of switching to GM crop/stock.

edit on 22-6-2011 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by seenitall
Something slightly more on topic...

Check out the FAO website and have a look at how much of the world's population rely on fisheries (and increasingly so over time) for food.

FAO World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010



Globally, fish provides more than 1.5 billion people with almost 20 percent of their average per capita intake of animal protein, and 3.0 billion people with at least 15 percent of such protein.


Then you have GM Atlantic Salmon. While I'm not 100% against GM foods, I often wonder how many people actually think that is a viable solution. Its yet another case of treating the symptoms and not the cause.

The problem with genetically modified salmon



Wild salmon require so much work: they need clean water, a bountiful ocean and restraint to ensure that they aren’t fished out of existence. Vigilance, and a small amount of sacrifice — what a drag.




edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)


Absolutely not. GM anything shouldnt be. We as a species should only eat what we can grow naturally in abundance. Work with what we have, not try ways to engineer our own...this planet isnt about that. I work in the industry and the company I look after grows Yellowtail Kingfish, and they were going great...now something is stopping them from growing. I know they're not GM, but the food I believe is boosted....We were never meant to mess with these things, just adapt to nature and use ways to be in harmony with her. GM salmon breeding with Natural...that'll be great.

Oh, World famine wouldn't be such a problem if people recognised also what they could eat around them. During plagues of locusts, locusts themselves are highly nutritious, espeecially because they eat the grain, and take that nutrition inside them and break it down into something more readily eaten and absorbed by our own body.
edit on 22-6-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


Please re-read my post.

I am not advocating GM fish.

I do however believe that limited genetic modification to cereal crops in particular will be essential if we are going to feed the world. That is assuming gene stacking doesn't get out of control, which I think will be the case.

The quoted text is intended as sarcasm. You would see this if you actually read the article.
edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 




Oh, World famine wouldn't be such a problem if people recognised also what they could eat around them. During plagues of locusts, locusts themselves are highly nutritious, espeecially because they eat the grain, and take that nutrition inside them and break it down into something more readily eaten and absorbed by our own body.


No, I understood that, it's just your 'not 100% against it'...you should be. We have ways of feeding ourselves, but we choose not to because it does not suit our lifestyle, or our tastes, whether perfectly good to eat or not.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


Part of my first degree was in genetics so I have enough of an understanding to stand by my opinions.

The problem is that there are too many people to feed. Thats when GM becomes a necessity, not an option. You just have to be very careful. I don't think that GM companies will be though.

I would love to be able to stand out and say no to any GM, but I think there would be a few billion people out there that disagree with me, especially in Africa and Asia. I couldn't stand by that kind of decision.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of GM, we should really do it in another thread.

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't quote your own posts as coming from me.
edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


Firstly, GM is not part of the solution, as much as you believe it so. That is why Planet Earth is about to do this. The solution could have been enacted around 1987. It's way too late to be talking about change now. Time is all we have left. By late October his planet wont be the same. Better time spent learning about ourselves now, rather than believing the lies of the ones who control us.

I also didnt quote you, I quoted me because I added this after you had posted your reply. Apologies if it came across this way.
edit on 22-6-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It isn't that I believe that GM is a solution.

GM is the only solution, and regardless of what anyone says, its going to happen. It is well within the capabilities of any nation state to genetically modify organisms. Climatic changes affecting global food production are going to affect a whole lot of people. Do you think 2+ billion people are going to choose to starve to death because they are worried that someone will go into anaphalactic shock or an ecosystem might be disrupted?

The risks are largely ecological. Once the rabbit is out of the bag there is no going back. I'm pretty sure its already too late.

Thats where I'm coming from... I don't like the idea, but its going to happen no matter what anyone thinks. Especially the people in developed countries with computers, internet, ipods, fresh drinking water and sanitation, solid homes, and an abundance of food.

You have to look at environmental problems in order of priorities.

To put it very simply: climate change > invasive species > GMO.

There are much bigger fish to fry than GMOs.

You can think in black and white all you like, but thats not how the world and these issues work. Its a massive system and there are interdependencies between EVERYTHING. The environment and human civilisations are not distinct from one another.

I honestly think that climate refugees are going to cause conflicts like have never been seen before. Its all connected and every decision has consequences.

The consequences of no GMOs whatsoever (and its already happened so its not an option) would be much worse than using strictly controlled GMOs when you consider EVERYTHING and the flow on effects.

Food for thought.

If you want to continue discussion about genetic modification, please create a new thread and have some solid, referenced arguments to back your viewpoint up. I will contribute.
edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


Actually, It is quite simply black and white, it was to choose to live in harmony with this planet or not. We chose not to. She will now cleanse herself of us because of our choices. She is going to solve the problem, humanity has only ever made it worse and your line of thought is half the problem. When the time comes you too will knowingly accept this for it is true.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


I'm interested in the survival of our species in additional to cleaning up the planet. If you can't understand what I'm trying to say then thats fine.

I don't come here for fun. I come here because as more and more people begin to realise how screwed we are ATS is like a beacon. I don't want fallacies and uniformed opinions run out of control.

So far your only arguments are 'purity'. You remind me of people in my conservation classes who were so desperate to save keystone species. People should be trying to preserve habitats and let evolution runs its course, however this doesn't attract much funding does it? My point being that there are limited resources and a short period of time, so resources must be concentrated in areas of the most importance or it isn't going to matter anyway.

If you cannot have an intelligent conversation (you cannot) this conversation is over.

As you have demonstrated absolutely no technical knowledge of genetics or biology, or an ability to think critically, you're going to meet my block list. You're being chained under your bridge.

Seriously, can't you even understand what I'm trying to say? I'm not pro-GM, but its going to happen regardless so there is no point wasting time and effort when there are much bigger issues to deal with.

I've dedicated the last 10 years of my working life and a significant amount of my personal time (unpaid) to promoting environmental awareness and creating real changes. What have you done that goes beyond sitting at home and complaining that the Earth is no longer pure? I don't want an answer, I want you to think about that long and hard.
edit on 22-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


I fully understand what you are saying. I am saying this planet can no longer support us. No amount of GM foods will save us now. Manipulating nature is not the answer.

And seriously, do I care if you block me. No. Thankyou for validating for me that you are yet another waste of human being who believes technology will save us...your education will not save you when the world is caving in around you. I would thoroughly enjoy the look on your face when it does happen, and it WILL happen....

I dont enjoy being cynical, but those who believe the answer lies in yet more energy consumption, funding and manipulation of nature are drastically fooled.

Oh, and calling me a troll will only get you the finger
I have a right to have an opinion, we dont have to agree, I see your argument and do not agree with it. What you dont understand is this has happened for a reason, purposefully making sure people starve, and the world goes into a great time of famine. This is what you dont understand.

I have enjoyed this conversation, whether we have agreed or not. I enjoy hearing different opinions. I am sorry you cant share the same maturity.
edit on 22-6-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join