|
I agree with Jayx1! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
but having no kids would ensure that you do your part to reduce the planets population, no?
and i only tend to use the "make yourself an example and off yourself" argument when someone decides that "humans are a disease to mother nature" or some other hippy like statement that ive heard in the past.
I dont disagree with you though. There are way too many people on this planet.
But i do think that there are more resources, and more technology out there that allow us to sustain ourselves. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
Humans also can't be multiplying forever in an exponential manner, as has been the case in the latter half of the twentieth century (and continuing in the 21st). There are limits to the planet's resources and capabilities and in order to maintain and preserve the delicate balance of our natural ecosystems, we should try to limit our propensity to reproduce and multiply exponentially. It's in everyone's best interest (that includes humans and other living animal and plant species). |
Hm...
You get married - 2 people
Have 2 kids - 4 people
They each have 2 kids, then you and your wife die - 6 people.
Each of those 4 kids have 2 kids, then your kids die - 12 people.
Each of those 8 kids have 2 kids, then your grand children die - 24 people.
So uh.... No, having 2 kids is NOT sustainable. And that doesn't even count the spouses of your children, which would put the people count at well over 48, all starting with you having 2 children.
The ONLY "sustainable" number of children to have is One. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
But he just said earlier that he consumes meat which is locally produced "in green pastures" - that means that the negative impact on the environment of the production of this meat is downgraded substantially - one of the ways that cattle and other farmed animals contribute to CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is if they are industrially farmed, housed in large warehouse type buildings where their breath, waste etc. accumulates in such large quantities that it becomes methane gas (if I understand it correctly) - therefore, by choosing to consume meat from an animal that was not industrially farmed, he is not in fact supporting the damage to the environment that you are mentioning.
Aren't you being a little selective and un-objective in the responses and your arguments back to Pivot? |
Every time a cow "moo"s, it is releasing methane gas into the atmosphere.
For that matter, every time you fart, YOU are releasing methane gas into the atmosphere.
Pasture-raised cows have their own set of environmental harms to consider, such as the amount of land that is required to keep them. It takes less land to raise 1000 cattle in a 2 acre warehouse than to let them roam free in a 200 acre field. That land could be used to grow trees, and trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere and replace it with good, clean oxygen.
The fact that Pivot rides a bike is harmful enough. Someone had to dig up the metal ore to create that bike, which takes tons of carbon energy to get, and mines deal devastating blows to the environment. Then that bike had to be transported from who-knows-where to the store that he purchased it, which used even more carbon energy. The store, by the way, uses carbon energy as well.
There's just no winning. Our instinct is to self-preserve, and that preservation MUST always come at the expense of some form of living organism. The best that any one person can do is lower their footprint, but as long as people are having more than a single surviving child in their lifetime, there's no such thing as "sustainability". |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
The only way to lower the human population is to control who lives and who dies. It may seem harsh but if we really want to save the earth we need to control the population.
Here is just a small list of people who should be elimated from the earth.
1. Anyone over 70 years of age
2. Anyone who has a terminal or permanent illness
3. Anyone who cannot support themselves or is a drain on society |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
if you think the government is doing a lousy job, why on earth would you want to give them even more work to do? (and more power?) |
Let me put it to you this way - you don't right a pendulum by swinging it all the way to the other end of its arc. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
The fact that Pivot rides a bike is harmful enough. Someone had to dig up the metal ore to create that bike, which takes tons of carbon energy to get, and mines deal devastating blows to the environment. Then that bike had to be transported from who-knows-where to the store that he purchased it, which used even more carbon energy. The store, by the way, uses carbon energy as well. |
Just of note, my last two bikes were both refurbs that were put together from recycled parts.
We can split hairs to infinity, but I'd venture it's safe to say that my refurb bike has had considerably less impact on the environment than the average automobile. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
one could argue that eating any kind of meat puts undue strain on the environment since all that grain and energy that is put into the food could go right to the table. But others would agree with what you just stated. Its all a matter of where one puts their threshold of acceptance. |
I get the feeling that you could (and probably will) argue until the gas runs out.
Seems to be the way of the world. We'll do a great job of talking ourselves out of existence, everyone's personal liberties fully intact. |
|
|
| kaniz |
It's impossible to reduce your impact to zero. No matter how green you are, you will have some level of impact on the environment.
But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take reasonable steps to reduce your impact. Throwing your hands in the air saying "Oh, even buying a bike is blah blah resource blah blah, so why bother?" as you jump into your car for a 5km commute to work is silly.
It's not an all-or-nothing situation. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by kaniz
It's impossible to reduce your impact to zero. No matter how green you are, you will have some level of impact on the environment.
But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take reasonable steps to reduce your impact. Throwing your hands in the air saying "Oh, even buying a bike is blah blah resource blah blah, so why bother?" as you jump into your car for a 5km commute to work is silly.
It's not an all-or-nothing situation. |
But what is reasonable for one person is not reasonable for another. The problem is there will always be some group of people that believes everyone should follow their example and will bitch and complain about it. The city, province, or country government will listen and then throw them a bone by banning something or changing the status quo whem maybe the best thing to do is to tell them to go hug a tree. |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by LightsOut
yup.
organic production on a mass scale is not sustainable for the worlds current population, 2 billion people would starve...
Truth be told, organic food has almost no benefit to humanity at all. |
Sometimes I wonder if that would be such a bad thing... |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
Let's see what's in the news today!
US military joins Gulf of Mexico oil spill effort
The US military has joined efforts to stop an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico as fears rise about its scale.
Five times as much oil as previously thought could be leaking from the well beneath where a rig exploded and sank last week, US officials said earlier.
The slick is 45 miles (72km) by 105 miles (169km) - almost the size of Jamaica - and heading for the US coast.
A third leak has been discovered, and a fire-fighting expert said the disaster may become the biggest oil spill ever.
"Probably the only thing comparable to this is the Kuwait fires [following the Gulf War in 1991]," Mike Miller, head of Canadian oil well fire-fighting company Safety Boss, told the BBC World Service.
"The Exxon Valdez [tanker disaster off Alaska in 1989] is going to pale [into insignificance] in comparison to this as it goes on."
Scientists say only a quarter of local marine wildlife survived the Exxon Valdez disaster.
Some 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) a day were now thought to be gushing into the sea 50 miles off Louisiana's coast, said the US Coastguard's Rear Admiral Mary Landry.
If those estimates are correct, the slick could match the 11m gallons spilt from the Exxon Valdez within two months.
The scale of the operation to contain the oil slick and protect both the US coastline and wildlife is unprecendented, with the military and other government agencies collaborating with BP - which had hired the sunken rig -and industry leaders.
Despite efforts to burn off the oil, the crews here are now battling against the odds.
The US Coast Guard's discovery of another leak spewing oil from the collapsed rig has many here bracing for an environmental disaster on a huge scale.
An estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day are now pouring into the Gulf of Mexico and forecasters say a new weather front could push the slick towards this coastline at an even faster rate. The state of Louisiana is now asking for emergency assistance as the oil slick draws closer.
It now seems inevitable that Louisiana's coastline will be hit and at least another two states could be affected.
Welcoming the US military's offer of help, BP's Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said the company would take help from anyone to combat the spill, but gave no specifics of what form that help might take.
Efforts to stem the flow are being complicated by the depth of the leak at the underwater well, which is about 5,000ft (1,525m) beneath the surface.
Weather forecasters have meanwhile warned that changing winds could drive the oil slick ashore by Friday night. Its leading edge is now only 20 miles (32km) east of the mouth of the Mississippi.
A coast guard crew has set fire to part of the oil slick in an attempt to save environmentally-fragile wetlands.
The "controlled burn" of surface oil took place in an area about 30 miles (50km) east of the Mississippi river delta.
But Mr Miller warned that burning off leaking oil was not a long-term solution.
"The object of this game is to shut off the flow," he said.
Engineers are working on a dome-like device to cover oil rising to the surface and pump it to container vessels, but it may be weeks before this is in place.
It is feared that work on sealing the leaking well using robotic submersibles might take months.
BP is also working on a "relief well" to intersect the original well, but this is experimental and could take two to three months to stop the flow.
President Barack Obama had been briefed on the new developments, and BP has welcomed the offer of assistance from the defence department to help contain the spill.
Seventy vessels - oil skimmers, tugboats barges and special recovery boats that separate oil from water - as well as five aeroplanes were working to spray dispersants and round up oil, BP said.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said the top priority was "to protect our citizens and the environment".
With the spill moving towards Louisiana's coast, which contains some 40% of the nation's wetlands and spawning grounds for countless fish and birds, it was hoped a "controlled burn" of oil contained by special booms would limit the impact.
Environmental experts say animals nearby might be affected by toxic fumes, but perhaps not as much as if they were coated in oil.
On Wednesday afternoon, BP and coastguard boats swept the thickest concentrations of oil into a fire-resistant boom.
This was then towed to a five-mile "burn zone" set up inside the slick, where it was set alight shortly before nightfall.
----------
Now, you could argue that the spill is *only* the size of Jamaica, that since it isn't taking place in Canada that our government has no jurisdiction over it, and that some of that oil might have ended up being used to put together bicycles and to help raise pasture-fed cattle.
But you'd be altogether missing the point. |
|
|
| VDub |
You know what I don't get???
With all of our technology, how in the hell have they not figured out how to stop these spills in a quicker and more efficient manner????
Is it so damn difficult??? |
|
|
|
|
