Sure, maybe we could screw up the globe if we set our mind to it and made it our particular goal. But there's a huge difference between setting off a few thousand nukes around the globe and driving your SUV while leaving the lights on when you aren't in the room.
In fact, I doubt we could do it if we didn't use the nukes. It'd be a lot harder to burn down all the forests than you might imagine. The wet ones just don't burn all that well without cut-n-burn tactics and using cut-n-burn on that much forest would take years (probably decades). Oh, we could kill a few thousand species, sure, but there's a heck of a lot of animals and plants in the world and they outnumber us by a hell of a lot. Plus to do the job right you've got to take out the ocean species, too, and I'm not sure where we'd start with that one. Oil floats so it's only good for taking out the surface and near-surface species. We could probably come up with some large quantities of toxic substances that would sink, but there's a lot more ocean out there than we could ever come up with toxins to flood in any way measurable in even PPT on a global scale.
Even widescale use of the nukes wouldn't finish off all the microscopic species, and probably not even all the insects. There've been at least six global mass extinction events in the last 500 million years (the most recent generally believed to have been caused by an asteroid impact equivalent to detonating two million of the largest nukes ever built), yet the ecosystem keeps rolling along. We just don't have enough nukes.
But yes on a global scale, in our normal regularly careless day-to-day activities, we are ants. I do not think we could accidently screw up the ecosystem of the planet short of nukes, release of an as yet non-existent multi-species-infecting super virus, or a "grey goo" apocolypse (once we get into nanotech). Our churning economy and the technology it creates saves lives - lots of lives - and makes the quality of life for everyone infinitely better. Anything that needlessly slows down that progress is an immediate threat to everyone. I find that of far more concern than the so far completely unsupported apocolyptic predictions that are an odd byproduct of our modern civilization.
Edited By TPRJones on 1173883416
Vote YES on Global Warming.
Just to be clear on one point: I do agree that we can - and do - destroy a small portion of the ecosystem on a local scale from time to time. I have no problem with local efforts to save a particular chunk of forest or a particular mountan or whatever, from a particular known threat. Anything we do destroy will be back to it's full glory within a few years (or decades if trees are involved), but there are certainly many cases when goign even that long without a particular piece of nature intact may be undesirable. These sorts of efforts are rational and worthwhile.
What I think is foolish an irrational is doing this as some sort of "save the planet" kick. Because it doesn't need help.
What I think is foolish an irrational is doing this as some sort of "save the planet" kick. Because it doesn't need help.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
So... as long as I'm just accidentally dumping mercury into the water, no one will get poisoned? After all, it's not my intention to kill people, therefore I must not be doing it. Power plants don't mean to release mercury into the environment, therefore it doesn't collect in fish, does it? [I'm using mercury here as an example of humans being impactful, and as an example of how human activities alter the environment. I'm not saying mercury causes global warming. Hell, I'm not saying anything is yet]TPRJones wrote:Sure, maybe we could screw up the globe if we set our mind to it and made it our particular goal. But there's a huge difference between setting off a few thousand nukes around the globe and driving your SUV while leaving the lights on when you aren't in the room.
There's also a difference between you driving in an SUV and leaving the lights on, and every single person doing it.
It's ignorant to think we cannot be affecting the planet with out current actions. The outcome of those actions is certainly debatable, but saying that humans are not impactful enough to do something on a planet-wide scale is just plain dumb.
It's not me, it's someone else.
hmm... show me one example of something we've done with a planet wide impact.TheCatt wrote:It's ignorant to think we cannot be affecting the planet with out current actions. The outcome of those actions is certainly debatable, but saying that humans are not impactful enough to do something on a planet-wide scale is just plain dumb.
I think this stupid floresent light thing is really retarded. Talking about mercury in the water.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
I guess I'll stick to mercury for now until I can research more. It's in a large number of places.Vince wrote:hmm... show me one example of something we've done with a planet wide impact.
I think this stupid floresent light thing is really retarded. Talking about mercury in the water.
As for flourescent lighting: If they are going to pursue this, then athey should legislate a goal, not a ban on a product. If you want lighting efficiency to double, set that target. Like with the MPG regulations. We can still have Hummers, but overall, cars are more efficienct.
It's not me, it's someone else.
On the contrary, thinking the things you've listed could possibly make any sort of difference shows an enourmous lack of understanding about the massive scale and amazing ressiliance of our global environment. I think it's a failure of imagination.TheCatt wrote:It's ignorant to think we cannot be affecting the planet with out current actions. The outcome of those actions is certainly debatable, but saying that humans are not impactful enough to do something on a planet-wide scale is just plain dumb.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Seeing that it's an element, I'd wager that it's going to remain in a large number of places. There is too much of it in our oceans and in our fish. I'd need to research where we get it from.TheCatt wrote:I guess I'll stick to mercury for now until I can research more. It's in a large number of places.Vince wrote:hmm... show me one example of something we've done with a planet wide impact.
I think this stupid floresent light thing is really retarded. Talking about mercury in the water.
I'm not saying we aren't capable of a world wide impact, I just can't really think of anything. Just like I'm sure we've brought about the extinction of species of animals, but I couldn't name 10 of them. I don't know if I could come up with 5.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
TPRJones wrote:TheCatt wrote:It's ignorant to think we cannot be affecting the planet with out current actions. The outcome of those actions is certainly debatable, but saying that humans are not impactful enough to do something on a planet-wide scale is just plain dumb.
On the contrary, thinking the things you've listed could possibly make any sort of difference shows an enourmous lack of understanding about the massive scale and amazing ressiliance of our global environment. I think it's a failure of imagination.
Lack of imagination? Are you even trying any more? There is no understanding or even thinking in statements like "Do whatever you want, everything will be fine."
I guess the environment fairies will come and clean up anything we do. That's imagination.
Edited By TheCatt on 1173964866
It's not me, it's someone else.
Yes, it's an element. However, it's normally found as an ore, and as such is in solid form, which is not readily bioavailable. It has to be processed to get pure mercury. The largest source in the US is coal-fired plants, which contribute about 40% of atmospheric mercury.Vince wrote:Seeing that it's an element, I'd wager that it's going to remain in a large number of places. There is too much of it in our oceans and in our fish. I'd need to research where we get it from.
I'm not saying we aren't capable of a world wide impact, I just can't really think of anything. Just like I'm sure we've brought about the extinction of species of animals, but I couldn't name 10 of them. I don't know if I could come up with 5.
I remember talking to one of my clients when I was in IT about one of our coal-fired plants. I was installing an environmental compliance system, and he said "Oh yeah... the other day, we accidentally dumped 4 pounds of mercury into the plant that got burned up and released into the area."
Yay!
CFCs are another compound that appeared to have a worldwide impact.
It's not me, it's someone else.
I'm sorry if I've insulted your religion, but I'll not be convinced until there is some actual scientific evidence to support your position. So far, all the evidence points in the opposite direction.TheCatt wrote:Lack of imagination? Are you even trying any more? There is no understanding or even thinking in statements like "Do whatever you want, everything will be fine."TPRJones wrote:On the contrary, thinking the things you've listed could possibly make any sort of difference shows an enourmous lack of understanding about the massive scale and amazing ressiliance of our global environment. I think it's a failure of imagination.TheCatt wrote:It's ignorant to think we cannot be affecting the planet with out current actions. The outcome of those actions is certainly debatable, but saying that humans are not impactful enough to do something on a planet-wide scale is just plain dumb.
I guess the environment fairies will come and clean up anything we do. That's imagination.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
When the Exxon Valdez dumped a bunch of oil in Prince William Sound, environmentally conscious people with good intentions did their best to clean it up, using methods that included using scalding water to clean up oily rocks.
Years later, we see the rocks that were scalded had all of the oil "eating" microbes autoclaved right off of them and the oil persists, yet the rocks and areas that received no such attention are pretty much recovered all by themselves.
So I guess that would be an argument in favor of the existence of fairies, in this discussion.
Years later, we see the rocks that were scalded had all of the oil "eating" microbes autoclaved right off of them and the oil persists, yet the rocks and areas that received no such attention are pretty much recovered all by themselves.
So I guess that would be an argument in favor of the existence of fairies, in this discussion.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
So humans caused environmental impact... twice?GORDON wrote:When the Exxon Valdez dumped a bunch of oil in Prince William Sound, environmentally conscious people with good intentions did their best to clean it up, using methods that included using scalding water to clean up oily rocks.
Years later, we see the rocks that were scalded had all of the oil "eating" microbes autoclaved right off of them and the oil persists, yet the rocks and areas that received no such attention are pretty much recovered all by themselves.
So I guess that would be an argument in favor of the existence of fairies, in this discussion.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Globally? No, not in that example.TheCatt wrote:So humans caused environmental impact... twice?GORDON wrote:When the Exxon Valdez dumped a bunch of oil in Prince William Sound, environmentally conscious people with good intentions did their best to clean it up, using methods that included using scalding water to clean up oily rocks.
Years later, we see the rocks that were scalded had all of the oil "eating" microbes autoclaved right off of them and the oil persists, yet the rocks and areas that received no such attention are pretty much recovered all by themselves.
So I guess that would be an argument in favor of the existence of fairies, in this discussion.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Sorry, but no. They've never even been able to get CFC's to interact on a chemical level with ozone in a controlled lab environment (last I read). We banned the stuff based on an unproven theory.TheCatt wrote:CFCs are another compound that appeared to have a worldwide impact.
Speaking of which, why don't we hear about CFC's anymore? Other countries still use them. Are they only harmful when they come from the U.S.?
I think the environmentalists learned from that incident. "Don't insist they stop using something they may actually stop using. The funding stops when they stop using it."
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Just like DDT, but that was also helped along by a sci-fi book "Silent Spring."Vince wrote:Sorry, but no. They've never even been able to get CFC's to interact on a chemical level with ozone in a controlled lab environment (last I read). We banned the stuff based on an unproven theory.TheCatt wrote:CFCs are another compound that appeared to have a worldwide impact.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Addendum to the CFC's. I was right in that CFC's themselves aren't the issue. It's when they break down and release the chlorine gases up there the possibility of an issue arises. But it ISN'T a global problem, because of a very specific set of circumstances happen in Antarctica which allow for a temprary thinning of the ozone during the early spring there.
Ozone Depletion
Ozone Depletion
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
No, but human actions affected the environment. Of course, an oil spill or poor clean-up is a one-time thing.GORDON wrote:Globally? No, not in that example.TheCatt wrote:So humans caused environmental impact... twice?GORDON wrote:When the Exxon Valdez dumped a bunch of oil in Prince William Sound, environmentally conscious people with good intentions did their best to clean it up, using methods that included using scalding water to clean up oily rocks.
Years later, we see the rocks that were scalded had all of the oil "eating" microbes autoclaved right off of them and the oil persists, yet the rocks and areas that received no such attention are pretty much recovered all by themselves.
So I guess that would be an argument in favor of the existence of fairies, in this discussion.
I don't know how well the fairies clean up after repeated/constant abuses. Maybe I should ask Europe after all that fun leaded fuel. Or China and their smog issues.
It's not me, it's someone else.