This post over at WorldChanging got me thinking.
For those who liken the human species to a virus, feeling the planet would be better off without us ...
For those who poo-poo technology ...
Pop quiz: What do you do when an asteroid is hurtling toward the Earth and the impact will likely cause mass extinction?
Maybe send some pesky humans into space to knock the rock off its course? By employing some fancy technology?
But wait ... are extinction-level events "natural"? Cause if so I assume we humans should not prevent them.
Maybe I'm just a confused "libertarian." Take the poll and tell me what to think.
Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.
So long and thanks for all the fish
It’s time to end the practice of shark finning
Frogs in the forest: the new canaries in the coal mine
Comments
View as Flat
Vincenze Posted 9:10 am
01 Mar 2006
an exponential pattern of growth,
an underlying destructive nature towards our host (Earth) to ensure our survival.
If a meteor was heading towards earth, of course humans will try and stop it...who wouldn't? No creature wants to die.
But does that mean that:
on the off chance that a Armageddon style incident will occur, and only us hero-humans will be there to save the day...JUSTIFIES...The 50,000 odd different species that go extinct each year, largely due to human impact, pollution and of course human poverty.
Natural, unnatural, a philosophical argument more than anything else...point is we don't need to be Bruce Willis to save the world, we've got enough problems here on earth to sort out first.
Vincenze.
ps. Technology is neutral, it's what we do with it that makes the difference.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:15 am
01 Mar 2006
Better to ask whether we should intentionally kill off entire species because they threaten humanity (see wolves, or bird flu). Then you start to see the differences in the green values- if that's the goal.
If the question is whether the development of current technology which (may or may not) enable us to save the Earth one day is worth the destruction it took to get here, my answer is NO. Better to go down with honor, at peace with the Earth, than to save it from an asteroid so it can suffer a slow and painful death at the hands of a species with no compassion for other forms of life.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:29 pm
01 Mar 2006
The reproductive organs of the plastic flower.
All human development has been aimed at that purpose all along, how else would plastic flowers propagate?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 1:39 pm
01 Mar 2006
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
accel2 Posted 11:03 pm
01 Mar 2006
Jeff,
It bums me out that for someone who is obviously such an optimist in the long view, you seem to get yourself so upset and disappointed about things in the short run. While there is much to be disappointed about, it might also be worth bearing in mind that sometimes the means to a virtuous end are not virtuous themselves. In other words, sometimes bad things need to happen in order to work towards the ultimate good. How else could it work - we humans are animals, not deities, and so we have to learn from our mistakes and civilize on the fly. I'd like to see a charismatic (or grouchy, for that matter) megafauna save the entire planet from total extinction if an asteroid were indeed heading for us. We humans may be annoying little brats right now, but may be it's all part of a larger process. I think even in the shittiest circumstances there has got to be something positive to get from it - so long as we're paying attention.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 11:38 am
02 Mar 2006
Don't mean to bum you out, have some beer or something and chill. However, I don't agree with you. Humans will not save the Earth from a meteor or anything else. Any astrophysicist or even physicist can tell you that blowing up an object like that in the movie would just cause more pieces to hit the Earth, causing at least as much and probably even more damage. We have nothing along the lines of the type of technology that would force a meteor or any other such object to miss us. I don't know where this fantasy came from (watching too many movies without checking actual scientific facts?), but it's ridiculous. Furthermore, no one is even trying to develop this type of technology. The only technology along these lines being developed is for the military. There's no profit in developing this type of technology, so the government would have to pay for it. Can you imagine the fascists who run the U.S. doing that? I certainly can't, and don't know if it's even possible, anyway.
The fact is that humans have destroyed life as we know it -- yes, I said "have," as in past tense, not present or future tense -- by their selfish, materialistic, anti-spiritual and anti-environmental behavior; it's only a matter of time. While I never give up hope, I do not realistically expect to save anything except whatever could grow back after we're gone. Humans are not like a child that just has to mature. The mature cultures, with people who lived naturally, were almost completely destroyed by civilization. What's left now is a humanity that resembles an adult criminal, not an immature child that merely needs to learn from its mistakes.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
Vincenze Posted 11:47 am
02 Mar 2006
I agree with you, so it pains me to say this, but I think Chris was really on to something when he started this debate. Check out the latest news headline:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18334189-401,00.html
Perhaps this is just to distract us while they finish off what's left of the Amazon...
Vincenze.
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 12:26 pm
02 Mar 2006
Jeff, it appears that NASA might be considering options:
Whether looking for the richest source of raw materials or trying to nudge an Earth threatening object out of harms way [emphasis mine], it makes a big difference whether we're dealing with a 50-meter sized fluff ball or a one-mile slab of solid iron. Because comets and asteroids differ so widely in their characteristics, missions have been planned to visit a widely diverse group of objects.
And if you read the WC post that started all this:
The "gravity tugboat" idea, for example, which was proposed last year in the pages of Nature, would require that a 20 ton space craft be parked by an asteroid for a year or more, at least twenty years before the possible impact. Given that VD17 is three times the size of the one used for the gravity tugboat idea, it would need both a bigger space craft and more time. We've never put that much mass into deep planetary space, and would need a decade or more to design, build and test the equipment necessary -- this is not something that we'd have many chances to retry if it failed.
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
Vincenze Posted 2:35 pm
02 Mar 2006
I hope the trend doesn't continue, at this rate it'll be 1 in 1 in no time!!!
Vincenze.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:34 pm
02 Mar 2006
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
accel2 Posted 11:55 pm
02 Mar 2006
It's apparent from this and other threads that your pessimism is beyond dialogue so you can continue with your depressing posts unabated.
So long as you feel you are living your life the best you can, then I guess that's what counts, anyway!
Permalink
Captain America Posted 12:56 am
03 Mar 2006
Enviro-Fascists,
When you stop heating your homes, driving your European cars, and burning fuel flying to Europe, then you will have attained credibility.
Until that time comes, when Enviros stop burning fuels to survive, you'll continue to be transparent hypocrites.
Thank you,
Captain America
America First
The World Second
Permalink
Vincenze Posted 12:27 pm
03 Mar 2006
Your comment left a bad taste in my ear...
No one said we all should go and live in the jungle like hippies, heat your home fine...do it by buying the most energy efficient heater. Drive your car, fine. Buy a hybrid and catch public transport when it's available.
Not heating your home out of spite is not the answer, what will that achieve? Supporting, promoting and discussing new eco-friendly technologies, is part of the solution.
Talking about the problems in the world is part of the process; it's not going to change over night! I'm sure that most environmentalists would stop using fuels if there was a better alternative.
A hypocrite is someone who is against something but then does exactly that, so if I preached about the effects of fuel then jumped in my V12 Ferrari and yell burn-fuel-burn!!! ok, hypocrite...
I can't speak for anyone else, I know that I recycle, I catch public transport (as much as it sux) and I would buy a hybrid if I could afford it. Am I a hypocrite because I drive a normal car on weekends?
It's not about pointing the finger, blaming people it's about working together to find solutions, we all admit we've been living beyond the earths capacity...we were all born into it...no one is saying they are saints...
But it's time to make changes...
Vincenze.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:06 pm
03 Mar 2006
He does provide a great example of what NOT to do when arguing our side of the enviro debate though.
Thus vindicating once again the wisdom of the founding fathers' trust in free speech and dialectic discourse.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Vincenze Posted 7:33 am
07 Mar 2006
Vincenze.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:03 pm
07 Mar 2006
I think that Jeff's (and the rest of us environmentalists) suggestion/outlook on human species is purely a value judgement. Who is to say that global warming is not a good thing? If you step back and think about all the things that will evolve in the next eon after we are all gone, and how well they will be adapted to warmer temps, persistent toxics, and mercury, how can you say that the future wealth of biodiversity is a bad thing?
Who's to say that the second smartest guy in the world (cap'n crunch over here) isn't right about AMerica being the only thing that matters? Who's to say that the Islamic fundamentalist isn't also right just as much as Cap'n is? What if they both by being right will create something way more important in the world after all?
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:27 am
08 Mar 2006
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:26 am
08 Mar 2006
So, I guess what I am saying is that global warming is a damn good thing as are persistent toxins, and the best thing that we as humans can do is use, use, use until we deplete resources needed for us, which is when our civilizations will end, as has happened before, everything is plunged into Middle Age type 'chaos' or even better, into a complete destruction of the human race. Then there won't be people that are concerned specifically with what they think is right and new species of songbirds will take off without any consideration for morality and ethics and they will procreate and there won't be any more need for ecologists, economists, doctors, lawyers, humanitarians, foresters, industrial engineers, truck drivers and short-order cooks.
I think that stance (which I think a lot of people actually have and I am considering: do what's best for you in the short-term, so that you can breed and maybe pass on your genes in a multitude, so that your progeny lives on) might be right for our species. Maybe our boom-and-bust cycles like the ones experienced by snowshoe hares and other r-selected creatures is just longer, and adheres better to our k-selected species.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:18 am
12 Mar 2006
I think that your position is nothing but a rationalization of a totally selfish attitude.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:37 am
12 Mar 2006
Unfortunately I do believe Ateyger is right about one thing: a lot of people do take that stance: It's all about me, now, nothing else matters. Others have a very fatalistic perspective: it doesn't matter what I do, what's gonna happen is gonna happen. Lots of folks don't feel connected to the Earth at all and so have no feelings about it one way or another. It's nothing more than a grocery store to them or an inconvenience when the weather gets in the way of their plans. And there are airheads who don't really think beyond the surface at all. Me, I've always thought about stuff like this, exploring consciousness in different ways over the years, seeking direct experience and then attempting to translate it into words. My answers may not be yours, but I do know there's more to life than meets the eye, so to speak. Evolution is not just about adapting to a physical environment, it's happening on every level from the body to the mind to the soul to the spirit and everyone and everything from trees and rivers to cats and fungi are part of it. (At least that's my belief, crazy though it may sound).
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:35 am
12 Mar 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:37 am
12 Mar 2006
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:52 am
12 Mar 2006
Hey, we all need a lil humor <grin>
I NEED to look towards a bright future in my job everyday. Since my own future appears damn limited, I'm dedicating what time I have left to improve the futures of our children (not that I even have offspring but, I do have plenty of nieces and nephews who deserve a good future).
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:20 pm
12 Mar 2006
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:43 pm
12 Mar 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:22 am
13 Mar 2006
Just some things I can think of and while not all of them are achievable, many are and, hopefully, will be achieved soon.
Permalink
Vincenze Posted 8:42 pm
13 Mar 2006
You guys both have good points.
Atreger, I agree that we need a better understanding of why some people don't give a toss about the environment and only care for their obvious immediate need.
Jeff, I agree that the reason for this is probably a lack of 'growing up' or maybe wising up...or maybe a general selfish nature.
Most organisms rarely think beyond a generation. Eat; sleep, reproduce and I've done my bit. Us humans also fall into this category.
But now we have proclaimed ourselves as the most intelligent species in the world...and it's time to start acting like it and think for the future...
If we can't do that we can't really call ourselves intelligent, only lucky Neanderthals.
Vincenze.
Permalink