Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 09, 2016, 07:01:51 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Poll

How will the Earth end?

The expanding Sun engulfs the Earth
11 (15.3%)
A black hole tears the Earth apart
5 (6.9%)
A giant asteroid collision
8 (11.1%)
The galactic magnetic cloud collapses
1 (1.4%)
An alien invasion
6 (8.3%)
Global warming
6 (8.3%)
Eaten by von Neumann machines (Docile robots turn into maniac killers)
5 (6.9%)
Nuclear weapons
11 (15.3%)
Earth's magnetic field reverses, killing us with high radiation
4 (5.6%)
Jesus finally gives up, tells God to hit CTRL+ALT+DEL
15 (20.8%)

Total Members Voted: 37

Last post Author Topic: How will the Earth end?  (Read 34467 times)

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2008, 04:06:16 AM »
Sorry to disillusion you but impacts and tidal waves won't destroy the Earth, and neither will global warming.

They may destroy humanity, maybe even life as we know it (impacts and global warming have done both in the past) but ultimately the only real hope for the planet and all other lifeforms is the extinction of the human cancer. It will come (probably sooner than humans think) and all the little furry and scaly things will learn to hold up a middle digit and laugh!

Edit - grief I got up in a good mood today .... mumble ...

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2008, 04:09:27 AM »
Carol: you're right in all of your points :)

Given the poll options, I still interpret the meaning as "destroy humanity" rather than "destroy the earth", though.
- carpe noctem

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2008, 12:30:45 PM »
but ultimately the only real hope for the planet and all other lifeforms is the extinction of the human cancer

Hope not.


Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2008, 06:45:38 PM »
but ultimately the only real hope for the planet and all other lifeforms is the extinction of the human cancer.

Haha! What a load of bull!


Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #29 on: December 14, 2008, 08:18:52 PM »
Why is it bull - in the past 4.6 billion years there have been numerous mass extinctions caused by traumatic natural causes. There is currently a world wide mass extinction in progress (and more rapid than any of the others the world has witnessed). We have the dubious honour of being the only species in history that has modified the planet to such an extent that life for many species has become impossible or extremely difficult, and even when those endangered species are identified what do humans do - hunt them down and exterminate them.

I stand by my comment - the only real hope for most other species on this planet is human extinction - and the way things are going on in the world today I would guess it won't be long before that is provided by a religiously based nuclear holocaust.

I'm feeling cheerful tonight - at least the ants will survive!

Cpilot

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
    • Bite Notes
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2008, 08:39:40 PM »
You know I kind of agree with Carol Haynes here, although I don't think it will be quite as dramatic as she does.
I think the human species will breed itself into stupidity and one day while it is raining all the humans will look into the sky with their mouths open and drown.
If you doubt it then check this out:
Sprinkler Rainbow Conspiracy
I'd say we're well on our way.

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2008, 09:36:09 PM »
Why is it bull

Well, I admit I overreacted. Calling the human race "the human cancer" is mostly what I was referring to as a load of bull. On top of that, your statement was put matter-of-factly instead of as a personal statement of belief or opinion.

I, too, am getting sick and tired of what humanity has seemingly become, as portrayed by the media, but I do not in anyway believe that we've really become so bad as to be considered a cancer or that we're even really as bad as the media makes us out to be. Everything we see in the news and on TV focuses so much on the negative, it's easy to think that's how people really are. And maybe you can't relate to this in the same way since you're from the UK, but I believe that underneath the cold exterior, people are really people like they were on September 12th, 2001.

Even Anne Frank, in the middle of the Nazi's extermination of the Jews said "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are truly good at heart."

It is my opinion that we need less cynics who think the human race is equivalent to a cancer and more people with hope and faith in the goodness of people. Please don't misunderstand that statement. I'm not saying the world would be better off without you, Carol. What I'm saying is the world would be better off if you made the choice to have faith in the goodness of others, rather than assuming the worst of humanity.

Mahatma Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world."


40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2008, 12:24:01 AM »
I stand by my comment - the only real hope for most other species on this planet is human extinction

'Giving up does not absolve us of the responsibility to do what is right." :)


CleverCat

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,158
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2008, 03:07:33 AM »
(Psalm 104:5) . . .He has founded the earth upon its established places; It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.

 :Thmbsup:

mahesh2k

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,417
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2008, 03:13:35 AM »
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure."

- Agent Smith: The Matrix.

=> Now i'm damn sure if Humans don't survive Machine will make this planet a much better place to live. Salute to agent smith.  :D

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2008, 05:44:30 AM »
Thanks mahesh2k that is a very good summary of my feelings.

It is all very well to say that humans are basically good. Most people I meet are kind, considerate, helpful in the extreme and thoroughly moral. There are very few people who seem not to be concerned with the destruction of the rainforest, mass extinctions and the awful pollution and physical devastation of the world.

The trouble is these sentiments don't inform the way people actually live (me included). Just as an example of where I live: I live in a beautiful oasis of apparent nature set aside as a National Park on a very crowded island (Britain). It all looks idyllic and everyone that comes here is impressed. What very few people realise is that the landscape as we see it today is wholly man made and is very little to do with nature. Gone are the forests, diverted are rivers and streams (which incidentally are polluted with chemical fertilizers and in some cases lead from a romanticised industrial past where children were forced to work in all weathers 14 hour shifts from the age of about 10). Every inch of the area is farmed in one form or another - even the wild open moorland (which impresses visitors with its wild bleakness) is farmed so that rich people can bring their shotguns and shoot grouse that have been especially reared for the privilege. Visible nature has suffered enormously (or to many eyes improved!) but there is a far more insidious effect on nature and that is that practically every wild animal is butchered to protect farming - badgers are gassed, foxes exterminated, rabbits infected with myxomatosis, stoats and weezles are trapped, moles are killed and strung along barbed wire fences, jackdaws are shot from the skies (and their carcasses hung in gardens to dissuade other jackdaws from coming near) ... the litany goes on and it is all purely to protect sheep farming. The moorlands are even worse treated. Practically anything that competes with the mega-buck grouse industry is exterminated - even birds of prey that have protected status, having been reintroduced by conservation groups, are deliberately poisoned.

As I say every single person (almost without exception) that do these truly awful things love where they live and would hate to see it 'spoiled', they love and care for their families, are good friends and neighbours and are thoroughly nice people.

The problems really arise with the way humanity has organised itself which leads to a political structure of rampant consumerism and greed (though few of us would admit to such vices) - how else can we explain the fact that the world allows the majority of African nations to live in abject poverty and in many cases starvation (unless of course they have oil reserves - in which case we'll take those without giving the benefit to the people and destroy their ecosystems in the process).

It is all very well to write off my view as cynical but try looking out at the world and see what is actually going on and you will see my views are mild by comparison.

The rate at which humans are consuming resources, breeding and destroying natural resource that we depend on (such as bees which are rapidly becoming extinct world wide and without which we don't get any food) means that humanity will be extinct or extremely impoverished leading to extinction in the foreseeable future. We have no one to blame but ourselves and the problem is intractable because there are simply too many vested interests who won't allow change - and generally they consume the most anyway.

As for the rest of the natural world it will recover, things will change. New species will emerge, the will be a geological remnant in 400 million years that a future species will dig up and ponder over as they find pockets of plastic - now that will be a challenge for any future species interested in geology to decode! I'd like to be there to see that.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 05:48:38 AM by Carol Haynes »

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2008, 09:25:25 AM »
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure."

- Agent Smith: The Matrix.

Thanks mahesh2k that is a very good summary of my feelings.

There's a fundamental flaw in that quote. The fictional character of Agent Smith categorizes human beings as a cancerous virus while proclaiming his own "race" of machines as the cure for that cancer. Yet it is the machines who are enslaving, killing, and leeching off of the humans for their survival. That was not a symbiotic relationship. And I'm sure the machines had no need for rain forests, animals or natural beauty. Isn't that ironic?

It is all very well to say that humans are basically good. Most people I meet are kind, considerate, helpful in the extreme and thoroughly moral. There are very few people who seem not to be concerned with the destruction of the rainforest, mass extinctions and the awful pollution and physical devastation of the world.

The trouble is these sentiments don't inform the way people actually live (me included). Just as an example of where I live: I live in a beautiful oasis of apparent nature set aside as a National Park on a very crowded island (Britain). It all looks idyllic and everyone that comes here is impressed. What very few people realise is that the landscape as we see it today is wholly man made and is very little to do with nature. Gone are the forests, diverted are rivers and streams (which incidentally are polluted with chemical fertilizers and in some cases lead from a romanticised industrial past where children were forced to work in all weathers 14 hour shifts from the age of about 10). Every inch of the area is farmed in one form or another - even the wild open moorland (which impresses visitors with its wild bleakness) is farmed so that rich people can bring their shotguns and shoot grouse that have been especially reared for the privilege. Visible nature has suffered enormously (or to many eyes improved!) but there is a far more insidious effect on nature and that is that practically every wild animal is butchered to protect farming - badgers are gassed, foxes exterminated, rabbits infected with myxomatosis, stoats and weezles are trapped, moles are killed and strung along barbed wire fences, jackdaws are shot from the skies (and their carcasses hung in gardens to dissuade other jackdaws from coming near) ... the litany goes on and it is all purely to protect sheep farming. The moorlands are even worse treated. Practically anything that competes with the mega-buck grouse industry is exterminated - even birds of prey that have protected status, having been reintroduced by conservation groups, are deliberately poisoned.

As I say every single person (almost without exception) that do these truly awful things love where they live and would hate to see it 'spoiled', they love and care for their families, are good friends and neighbours and are thoroughly nice people.

I find it difficult to understand how it is so easy for you to deem human beings worthy of extinction while at the same time defending pests that, without keeping their population in control, will damage nature even more.

The rate at which humans are consuming resources, breeding and destroying natural resource that we depend on (such as bees which are rapidly becoming extinct world wide and without which we don't get any food) means that humanity will be extinct or extremely impoverished leading to extinction in the foreseeable future. We have no one to blame but ourselves and the problem is intractable because there are simply too many vested interests who won't allow change - and generally they consume the most anyway.

The funny thing about nature that you seem to think doesn't apply to humans is that it has a way of balancing itself out eventually. Whenever the wolf population gets too large and kills too many deer, there is a lack of food and the wolves die of starvation. It may take many years for the deer population to recuperate, but it will, and then the wolves will be back to start the cycle again. Are wolves any more restrained in their consuming of natural resources than humans are? And it's not just wolves. Even an overpopulation of deer could wipe out certain flora in the area.

You seem to recognize this with the statement below:

As for the rest of the natural world it will recover, things will change. New species will emerge, the will be a geological remnant in 400 million years that a future species will dig up and ponder over as they find pockets of plastic - now that will be a challenge for any future species interested in geology to decode! I'd like to be there to see that.

If you truly believe that humans are just evolved monkeys, animals ourselves, then why are we excluded from nature? Why are we not allowed the right to survive as a species? Isn't that what evolution is all about, "survival of the fittest"? Isn't evolution a part of nature? If so, then isn't it natural for "unfit" species to be eradicated to make way for the fittest?

But of course, we're not just animals. There's definitely something that makes us unique compared to animals. From what I understand, we're the only species who actually protect the old, sick, handicapped, or otherwise "weak" members of our species. We have compassion on each other and the earth's inhabitants. We have compassion to a fault, trying to meddle in affairs "for their own good" when we have no idea how to properly take care of things.

You bring up a good point by mentioning national parks. In the U.S. we've messed up the ecobiology of Yellowstone National Park so many times by protecting wolves and trying to get rid of them and other things like that. If we can't even figure out how to take care of the flora and fauna of an area set apart as a national natural reserve, how can we think we know what's best for the world? Or what species should live and die? It's this mentality of "I know what's best for everyone/everything" that's getting us into many of the current abhorrent situations we as a world are currently in.

It is often our compassion and our desire to do good that leads us to coddle and care for everything around us. We imagine this perfect Utopian world where no one has any problems. Where there are no struggles, no difficulties. Everything is abundant for everyone and everything. We attempt to protect everything--people, plants, animals, landscapes, etc.--as if we were trying to protect innocent and unspoiled infants.

But that's not how nature works. Nature needs struggle to survive. And I think it's hypocritical to say that it's wrong for human beings to make plants and animals extinct and in the same sentence say that the best thing for the planet and every other lifeform is the extinction of the human race. As you mentioned before, extinction isn't a new phenomena brought on by mankind.

I, for one, don't take too kindly to being called a cancer and being told that the world would be better off if I didn't exist. And I can't see how you can honestly believe yourself to be cancerous to the world and want for your own destruction, unless you're having mental struggles with depression and suicidality. And please don't take that the wrong way. I've been there before as well. Just two months ago I had a struggle with deep depression and feelings that my life was meaningless and that, at the least, the world wouldn't be any worse off without me. But that's a lie, and that's why depression is considered an illness that needs to be cured. You just aren't thinking straight when thoughts like that occur. The truth is that I may not have personally changed the world, but I would be sorely missed, if only locally, were I to suddenly become extinct. I'm not a great, amazing person, but a part of the world (again, even if only this local area) would be worse off had I never been born.

My contribution is small, and I bring my own problems with me, but I do what I can and it is good.


zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,292
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2008, 10:36:36 AM »
The overwhelming fact in Carol's argument is this: the rate of human population growth over the past 200 years. Sure, many developed countries have long scaled back their birth rates, but how many religions on earth preach that its followers should have an "annual baby" come hell or high water? Sustainability is not possible without the energy sources needed for a decent human life.

Otherwise, we might as well all be the poorest Africans who, when trouble arises, reach for the nearest genocide time and again. The cycle is already way old.

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2008, 10:47:46 AM »
We are not excluded from nature - extinction for almost all species is part of nature.

I suppose the main difference with humans is that technology has distorted nature - and ultimately wars will occur when food/fuel availability drops. We can see that happening already in the world and we can see the human tragedy in Dafur.

I think that ultimately when things get really bad for the western world, ie. poverty and starvation, not to mention malaria creeping to northern latitudes (as it is already), war will become a bigger fact as the consuming western society go out to grab what they can from other countries. At some point someone will get nuclear capability and some sort of apocalyptic end will happen.

Incidentally I do see humans as evolved from primates (no problem there - I like bananas) but when you say:

Quote
I find it difficult to understand how it is so easy for you to deem human beings worthy of extinction while at the same time defending pests that, without keeping their population in control, will damage nature even more.

I think you miss my point in two ways:

First, I don't deem humanity worthy of distinction, it is just an inevitability in the natural course of events. Practically every species that has ever existed has become extinct, and very few have lasted more than a few million years. Why should the human species be any different to others?

Second, how do 'pests', as you call them, damage nature? They are part of nature - the only thing that they do 'wrong' is to damage human interests. I think Canada would be a lesser place without its otters, bears and wolves but go to Scotland where they were once prevalent and find a single example - they have all be exterminated. That is not nature it is barbarism and in this day and age we should be moving away from such practices rather than endorsing them.

If you want to take a religious view of this issue (personally I don't because I can't see how religion is relevant to life) then in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition it is generally believed that God gave mankind dominion over the creatures of the world. Surely with dominion comes responsibilty - not just a right to obliterate. If I believed God existed I would have to wonder what he thinks of what human kind have done to creation - it isn't exactly an encouraging sign of respect.

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2008, 10:53:03 AM »
The overwhelming fact in Carol's argument is this: the rate of human population growth over the past 200 years. Sure, many developed countries have long scaled back their birth rates, but how many religions on earth preach that its followers should have an "annual baby" come hell or high water? Sustainability is not possible without the energy sources needed for a decent human life.

Human overpopulation is a myth. You could fit the entire human population of the earth inside the same square mileage as the state of Utah and the population density would be lower than it is in New York City. Of course, we're going to run out of food soon anyway since we're growing it all to fuel vehicles instead of feeding people with it.

Which just reiterates my point: People who think they know what's best for the world are causing bigger problems.


Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2008, 11:06:32 AM »
Overpopulation is a myth?

Have a look at these:

World human population in millions (50-year intervals, since 1750)
(source United Nations and Bureau of Census)



World human population in millions (10-year intervals, since 1950)



Population growth are increasing exponentially and unsustainable.

zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,292
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2008, 11:25:05 AM »
Which just reiterates my point: People who think they know what's best for the world are causing bigger problems.

Would you agree that ecology has both intrinsic and instrumental value for our species; therefore, not destroying the ozone layer is a good thing; not polluting the oceans, the water table, etc. are valuable behaviors in and of themselves? Come to the south side of St. Louis, Missouri, to Times Beach, and see an entire city that is abandoned like Chernobyl all because one guy wanted to save money by dumping dioxin in the ground. It's eery!

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #42 on: December 15, 2008, 11:33:10 AM »
We are not excluded from nature - extinction for almost all species is part of nature.

I suppose the main difference with humans is that technology has distorted nature - and ultimately wars will occur when food/fuel availability drops. We can see that happening already in the world and we can see the human tragedy in Dafur.

If humans are part of nature, then why isn't technology also natural? Many animals use tools. Ours are just more sophisticated.

I think that ultimately when things get really bad for the western world, ie. poverty and starvation, not to mention malaria creeping to northern latitudes (as it is already), war will become a bigger fact as the consuming western society go out to grab what they can from other countries. At some point someone will get nuclear capability and some sort of apocalyptic end will happen.

I agree that we've become too much of a consumer society and that we have become crippled because of it. And yes, I too believe that it's only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again. However, I think that the human race will survive.

Incidentally I do see humans as evolved from primates (no problem there - I like bananas) but when you say:

Quote
I find it difficult to understand how it is so easy for you to deem human beings worthy of extinction while at the same time defending pests that, without keeping their population in control, will damage nature even more.

I think you miss my point in two ways:

First, I don't deem humanity worthy of distinction, it is just an inevitability in the natural course of events.

Point taken.

Second, how do 'pests', as you call them, damage nature? They are part of nature - the only thing that they do 'wrong' is to damage human interests.

For that matter, what exists on this planet that isn't a part of nature? Even things "created" by mankind came from natural elements and components.

If you want to take a religious view of this issue (personally I don't because I can't see how religion is relevant to life)

Then why bring it up?


Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2008, 11:36:39 AM »
Overpopulation is a myth?

Have a look at these:

A couple of charts showing an increase in the population means nothing except that population is increasing. Just because population has increased that does not mean it has become unsustainable given the Earth's natural resources and our ability to provide for ourselves. Even if the earth has never had this many human beings alive on it at the same time, that doesn't mean we've reached or surpassed capacity! It only means that it's more than it's ever been.


Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #44 on: December 15, 2008, 11:44:20 AM »
Which just reiterates my point: People who think they know what's best for the world are causing bigger problems.

Would you agree that ecology has both intrinsic and instrumental value for our species; therefore, not destroying the ozone layer is a good thing; not polluting the oceans, the water table, etc. are valuable behaviors in and of themselves? Come to the south side of St. Louis, Missouri, to Times Beach, and see an entire city that is abandoned like Chernobyl all because one guy wanted to save money by dumping dioxin in the ground. It's eery!

Of course there is intrinsic value for our species to have water we can drink and land that we can live on and grow food from. I don't know anybody who wants another Chernobyl in the world. I don't know anybody who really just wants to cut down all the trees, dump toxic waste into the ground, and kill all the animals.

We do need to be responsible. And we do that by taking personal responsibility. I'll refer back to Gandhi: "Be the change you want to see in the world."


Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #45 on: December 15, 2008, 01:17:26 PM »
Of course there is intrinsic value for our species to have water we can drink and land that we can live on and grow food from. I don't know anybody who wants another Chernobyl in the world. I don't know anybody who really just wants to cut down all the trees, dump toxic waste into the ground, and kill all the animals.

Which is what I said - no one you speak to wants that but it is the effect we are having.

A couple of charts showing an increase in the population means nothing except that population is increasing. Just because population has increased that does not mean it has become unsustainable given the Earth's natural resources and our ability to provide for ourselves. Even if the earth has never had this many human beings alive on it at the same time, that doesn't mean we've reached or surpassed capacity! It only means that it's more than it's ever been.

Yes that is what they show - but if you look at the first graph the population growth rates are (approximately):

11% in the first 50 years
29% in the next 50 years
31%
44%
139%

So in the last 50 years the population has increased by more than 139%

If the curve continues (and there is no reason to assume that it won't) how many people are going to be on the planet in 2050, 2100, 2150 ?

Currently deforestation is on a massive scale because people in the rainforest regions need to fight poverty by growing crops and there is a shortage of land able to support crops.

The rainforests supply a huge proportion of oxygen into the atmosphere and clean out CO2 - what is going to do that when all the trees have gone?

If population continues to grow and the desertification continues in the way it is at the moment where is the food growing to be grown. It is all very well saying that the world's population could fit into Utah - but if they all moved there what would they eat and drink - I hope they like cactus stew!

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #46 on: December 15, 2008, 09:30:46 PM »
Yes that is what they show - but if you look at the first graph the population growth rates are (approximately):

11% in the first 50 years
29% in the next 50 years
31%
44%
139%

So in the last 50 years the population has increased by more than 139%

But that does not indicate in any way how close to capacity the earth is at. Who knows what the capacity of the earth is? Using both extremes as an example, if the earth was at 80% capacity 50 years ago, then yes we're already way over populated. But if the earth was at 3% capacity, a 139% increase means next to nothing. That's why those statistics don't help support the idea that the earth is overpopulated with human beings.

If population continues to grow and the desertification continues in the way it is at the moment where is the food growing to be grown. It is all very well saying that the world's population could fit into Utah - but if they all moved there what would they eat and drink - I hope they like cactus stew!

If the majority of the earth's human population lived in an area about the size of Utah, then deforestation and farming would likely no longer be a problem, as there would be plenty of land left over.


Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2008, 09:39:26 PM »
The numbers also seem dubious to me. Did they really have the technology to accurately calculate the entire world's population in 1750? The greater part of the American continents were still unexplored by what was considered the "civilized" world back then. And surely the "uncivilized" parts of the world didn't take part in any global population census.


Cpilot

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
    • Bite Notes
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2008, 04:12:44 PM »
Here's the answer.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Quote from: the website
Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,724
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: How will the Earth end?
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2008, 08:48:23 PM »
Here's the answer.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Quote from: the website
Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

 ;D :P