Reply With Quote
Um, that's not true. Ninety percent of all species that have been on this planet died before we even left the caves.
I like conservation as much as anyone, but we need to keep things in perspective.
WWF reporting that we are destroying nature and our most important economic capital, planet earth. While there may or may not be some things slightly exaggerated here, it goes without denying that our species is toast. Not in our lifetime, or our childrens, but its obviously that within a few 1000 years this stuff will come back to destroy our kind.
The problem is, we cant envision that because we are slightly in a calmer and more in control time so the idea of destroying the planet seems like 'hippie PETA '. I really do hope the other side is right, and that this is all just fear mongering, nothing would make me happier than to know theres nothing to worry about.
But destroying the oceans and this planet has nothing to do with hippie BS. This is really sad
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/busine...html?hpt=hp_c4
Um, that's not true. Ninety percent of all species that have been on this planet died before we even left the caves.
I like conservation as much as anyone, but we need to keep things in perspective.
^ Different argument, Chinook. Species which have vanished were replaced by other species. Survival of the fittest will result in extinction.
The article is talking about a steep reduction in the population of animal life. 76% reduction in the quan y of freshwater creatures, 83% reduction in wildlife population in Central and South America ... these are staggering figures. Not surprising given the amount of deforestation, hunting, fishing needed to support a colossal human population.
Nah, it's the same argument, but in slow motion. What we've been doing is nothing close to the Cambrian extinction or even the KT boundary extinction. Creatures die off an get replaced by new ones, but it doesn't happen instantaneously. Once humans die off, then the planet will correct itself. And sentient life in a billion years will consider this just a blip on the radar.
so what gives ? we don't give a and wait humans to disappear...
great logic
a meteor did it in matters of seconds, we are doing it in matters of couple of hundred years so yeah... nothing to be worried about
Not saying that at all. Saying it depends on perspective. The earth will recover no matter what we do (short of literally blowing the planet apart). So conservationism is a selfish human desire, and not an altruistic one. We want to save the planet for us, or for the things that make us happy. We don't want to save it because we're actually at risk of destroying it.
And yes, I am a conversationalist (political leaning, not job description) who went to college to study ecology.
no
we want to save it because it is ethical to do so, we want to do it because species are important part of eco system that is important for water supply, oxygen... whatever you can imagine... that's the opposite of being selfish and I'm not even talking about the famous "next generation" concern. All this logic sucks: being skeptical and questioning everything... the wolves, it's not 40% it is x%, meteor did worst, natural explanation on global warming more relevant than human activities blablabla lead to inaction and lack of accountability.
yeah that sucks and sorry to say that but it is very american, good excuse to do nothing tbh...
Agree that human existence is finite and short-lived. The difference between our current situation and prior extinction events is that those were caused by forces that are not self-aware (e.g. oxygen depletion, asteroid impact, glacial cooling etc). The human race knows what it is doing, but for various reasons will do nothing to stop it till it becomes too late.
Same thing.
People want to do it because it's better for them to do so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to do anything. I support that, as well as supporting conservationism because I want animals and plants to survive.
The point, however, is that we aren't currently destroying the planet with our actions. We're destroying ourselves. People should accept that conservationism is a selfish, anthropocentric movement and get off their moral high ground. Maybe it would reach more people if it wasn't being packaged as an obligation (like taxes) and not some sort of charity.
And lay off the anti-American slants on this, all right? I'd say most of the nation supports at least moderate conversationalist efforts. We may have a government controlled by industry, but it's not like we're China when it comes to pollution standards.
Sure, but that difference is pretty minute in the grand scheme. People aren't destroying the environment because they want to. It's just the result of the needs of an ever-growing population. We can slow down the destruction by taking certain measures. We've already done that and need to continue to do so. But we will eventually reach a point where the planet can no longer sustain us, and we'll crash. That's just regular old ecology right there.
'Tis ironic that this planet has hosted only one species that is aware of the rarity of sentient life in the universe, but that same species will accelerate the demise of sentient life in its habitat. Life on the planet is not going to be forever ... our sun turning into a red giant, another ice age, an asteroid hitting us etc ... but we will further shorten that window of existence because of our inability to overcome our evolutionary shortcomings (insatiable desire to consume, selfishly optimizing our own lifespan rather than that of our descendants, etc)
We'll continue on. Just not on earth. Unless something happens first.
Good arguments in this thread, but when it comes to the decline of animal life, I like to keep it simple, tbh: blame Asians..
I don't get your "People want to do it because it's better for them to do so". Most people know that actions taken now will have positive effect when they will be dead. What we are doing now is not for us right now it is for future. You have few examples of measure giving immediate result so again I don't see your point, in what universe it is selfish to do something that will be beneficial for others ?
Governments are making it an obligation because the system showed it is incapable to self regulate because short term most individuals give little and companies give 0 if no money can be made out of it.
For your last point, now the new standard is to be compared to China ? really ? so US is much better than China globally on those topics so it's all good ? A standard should be taken on best in class not lowest in class. From best in class to US there is a ing world regarding actions and ambition.
just an example regarding ambition on a domain I know quite well:
BTW on C02 US are making a significant business mistake... industries are working their ass off to find solutions to reduce emissions because of regulation. Innovation in that domain (hybrids, new radiators generation, smaller compressors, electrical vehicles, stop and go starters etc...) is coming from Asia and Europe. US market has 10 years delay on it. When you want to talk about hybrid, electrical vehicles you go see Toyota, Hyundai, Honda... not Ford, Chrysler or GM.
In every universe, actually. You act altruistically because you want do. Doing something because you want to is selfish.
And that's the way it should be. It's the government's job to mediate our selfish desires and do what's best for everyone. We don't pay taxes because it gives us the fuzzies. We do it because the government makes us. Same should be true for conservation.Governments are making it an obligation because the system showed it is incapable to self regulate because short term most individuals give little and companies give 0 if no money can be made out of it.
No, but there's little reason to argue that my view that conservationism is somehow American because it considers people to be relatively insignificant when compared to the whole planet. I've said over and over that I support conservation. It makes me sad that the world is the way it is now. The same is true for a lot, probably even most Americans. I just know that Earth will be fine when all is said and done. It's us who won't be.For your last point, now the new standard is to be compared to China ? really ? so US is much better than China globally on those topics so it's all good ? A standard should be taken on best in class not lowest in class. From best in class to US there is a ing world regarding actions and ambition.
Isn't that graphic a "good" thing? It seems like we'd be able to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in just 10 years. What's that supposed to show me?
So altruism is selfish?
Doing something beneficiating to others is selfish... English is not my first language so I'm walking on eggs here... I know this definition of selfish: (Of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure. So we do stuff to protect environment that won't beneficiate us but this is selfish. Where is the personal profit or pleasure and lack of consideration for other people ?
First this graphic is showing today US cars are emiting 1,5 times more C02 per km than Japanese cars and that US is the worst in that domain by far. Not sure how this is a good thing.
Second this graphic is showing US ambition is still to be the worst in 2020 by a significant margin and to reach a still worst level in 2025 that Europe 95 and Japan 105 will reach in 2020.
Graphic is illustrating this comment: "From best in class to US there is a ing world regarding actions and ambition."
On top of that US gave an indication and did not commit on those targets as they did not sign Kyoto.
Brazil, basically Chinook's argument can be summed up with bees.
We personally don't give a flying about bees themselves, nor should we. Nobody wants to save the bees for the sake of saving bees. But we know that if the bees die off, it can lead to unwanted effects down the line that can/will negatively affect us.
We are saving the bees because their extinction will be an inconvenience to us, not for the altruistic sense of saving bees just for the ethical sake of saving bees.
At least that's how i've interpreted it. Feel free to correct me if i'm off-base here, Chinook
Yes, saving our particular state of Earth is selfish. We're not saving Earth in general, as it will be fine. We save animals for our benefit and for the pleasure it brings us. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's not inherently virtuous. Conservationism is about making our lives easier, or the lives of our descendants. We should treat like we do taxes. It's not an ethical thing for individuals to do. It's a necessary thing for society as a whole to do if we want to have our species survive as long as we can.
I heard him
not sure you heard me... The unwanted effects down the line will negatively affect next generations not ours. If you consider human race as an en y with life time of thousand years ya ok let's say it is selfish on that way but this human race en y does not exist, individuals are taking decisions for future of the specie. This does not make these individuals selfish, they are not acting for their profit but for profit of someone else... that's being altruist.
Now responding to chinook Its a necessary thing to do if we want our species survive I agree, it will take unselfish individuals taking decisions that will be lower their comfort for a future benefit they won't see. Again opposite of selfishness
That's not selflessness. Is it selfless for a mother octopus to let her offspring eat her when they hatch? What about the penguins who fast for weeks to protect their eggs? Or the meerkat who gets picked up by the eagle because he was screaming his head off warning the others? Humans looking forward are still selfish, chasing what makes them feel good. Even if you don't buy that, they're still obviously anthropocentric, so the species as a whole is selfish.
Here you are making a confusion between survival instinct and selfishness. Individualities are still moved by instincts nobody is denying it but you are characterizing instinct with human feelings, that does not work.
Of course it does. Humans are selfish like everything else is.
Nope selfish is human feeling octopus is not selfish like cat is not cruel
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
