Ecologic urgency : Air traffic excess

stonebeard wrote: Ecological crisis? Depends on how you look at it. There were many extinctions before us. Most animals that were ever on the earth are extinct now. We're not really crying about that are we? So, humanity might be screwing up the atmosphere for a bit. Oh well. We'll just end up killing ourselves and most other megafauna on earth, we'll have a period of desolation, and earth will rebound, hopefully without a uncaring, out-of-equilibrium species like Homo erectus erectus around to screw it up again. Earth survives, life survives, the universe survives. Maybe it's to our benefit to care about the environment, but it's certainly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. All we are is ants builing a really large colony, and it will crash down sooner or later.

What if it's in nature's way to create intelligent forms of life? One asnwer could be that there will be many such cycles until one intelligent species won't be self-distructive.

Maybe the world is going down the drain and maybe it will take us to stop it, it will take a lot more than less travel to do it too, the very soil and water of the planet contains the poisons we have put there, sacrifices will have to be made and humanity can solve these problems with clean energy sources and a cessation of the behaviors that got us in the mess we are in, as for what I have given up I never advocated cold turkey but a reduction in toxic behaviors which if implemented across the board would help immensely

harmonium.ro wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ecological crisis? Depends on how you look at it. There were many extinctions before us. Most animals that were ever on the earth are extinct now. We're not really crying about that are we? So, humanity might be screwing up the atmosphere for a bit. Oh well. We'll just end up killing ourselves and most other megafauna on earth, we'll have a period of desolation, and earth will rebound, hopefully without a uncaring, out-of-equilibrium species like Homo erectus erectus around to screw it up again. Earth survives, life survives, the universe survives. Maybe it's to our benefit to care about the environment, but it's certainly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. All we are is ants builing a really large colony, and it will crash down sooner or later. What if it's in nature's way to create intelligent forms of life? One asnwer could be that there will be many such cycles until one intelligent species won't be self-distructive.

Maybe. Humanity by nature has a great ability to act on things that are immediate problems, but in general an incredibly unsustainable ability to plan long-term for future generational issues. The history of humanity can be summed up as the discovery of tools to further exploit nature with and decreasing sense of a need to replace what was taken. The course of human history would seem to go until there are no resources left. Then no more humanity. Assuming we don't boil ourselves in our own atmosphere or fry ourselves with nuclear weapons. We may be too late to change this, because it's not just a matter of alternative energy, it's a matter of a complete mindset shift in a species. Humanity, by the nature of it's mind, is intrinsically exploitative. I can't see how nature can favor this, but maybe we'll surprise me.


Edited by stonebeard - February 25 2011 at 12:55

Yes lets all excuse ourselves because its just a roll of the dice and its all in our heads

timothy leary wrote: Yes lets all excuse ourselves because its just a roll of the dice and its all in our heads

The T wrote: I know the problem is complex, and that's why I reacted to Tim's ultra-simplistic "having a planet to live one vs moving country to country" statement. Complex problems need complex solutions. If you think coming up with better and powerful enough to make planes fly sources of energy is quite difficult, even more so is trying to make people stop using a way of communication that has greatly enhanced and improved people's lives. It's actually impossible.

Actually it was you first who put the problem in the black vs white "having a planet to live one vs moving country to country" way, T. And of course when someone states the black the white fans show up to combat the black, like now with Tim. Maybe if you didn't simplify the problem like that we wouldn't have gotten another ideological debate.

The T wrote: <span ="apple-style-span"="" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; "> Blacksword wrote: I guess an alternative source of clean renewable energy needs to be found, and quick, because we are not going to change our travel habits. Unless, of course, the cost of fuel goes through the roof and stays there, and carbon taxes are imposed on all nations making air travel only the preserve of the uber rich. It's interesting that technology allows us to telecon more and more at work, and yet business air travel seems to increase year on year. The company I work for spent over £1.3 million on travel last year, and that's just our one UK site. </span> That's reasonable. If planes can fly on something other than fuel, great, I'll applaud it and support it. But just implying that people should stop flying is quite absurd and goes against all that has been made possible with the advent of technology... Families won't be able to get together, business won;t be able to be conducted, and many many other consequences of ideas like "what's more important, having a planet or moving country to country".

I agree. People wont stop traveling, and commerce will not cease. There isn't a solution in terms of what the green lobby says needs to happen. It would require a basic and unanamous paradigm shift throughout the entire world, including countries like China and India who are on the ascendency. They are not going to sign up to treaties and protocols if it means they are not allowed a slice of the same pie we've been tucking into for the last century.

The earth is a perfect capitalist system, a trade of resources from earth to humanity in exchange for greenhouse gases and rising temperatures.

Everything can relate to libertarianism, always.

stonebeard wrote: The earth is a perfect capitalist system, a trade of resources from earth to humanity in exchange for greenhouse gases and rising temperatures. Everything can relate to libertarianism, always.

< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8"> 

harmonium.ro wrote: The T wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: @T: Uh no, your question implies that Oliver asks for people not to fly at all. And he doesn't.  I don't see that implication. I see a question.  That's why it's called an "implication". : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement 1. to express or indicate by a hint; suggest

I know what implication means.

For example, in this post it's clear you're implying I'm an ignorant and laughing at it because I don't even know English, whcih is not my native language.




Edited by The T - February 25 2011 at 13:52