The seven deadly things we’re doing to trash the planet (and human life with it)

Dr Crayfish

Great article here on the current state of things

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/seven-deadly-things-trash-planet-human-life

Hyper consumption, corporations running the world, almost 2 billion vehicles on the roads, human population, monoculture and poor soil, inequality and poverty

These are the major issues we're facing on the planet now and we are ruled by governments who try to encourage most of these issues, being told that the growth of the economy and hyper consumption are what's required to improve quality of life.

I find it pretty scary and surely our days are numbered and quite few at this stage!

Easter Island failed because an isolated land was consumed until nothing was left. Unless we find more planets very soon the same will happen to Earth.

Does anyone think the revolution in lifestyles required to fix these problems will ever happen?

Does anyone have any plans to try and change their lifestyles for the greater good?

sbsquarepants

I'm 42 now - be grand:D

HigginsJ

Oh good, more Green lecturing :rolleyes:

Hande hoche!

We need to colonise Mars. Admittedly we will probably end up destroying it too...

Seth Brundle

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Does anyone have any plans to try and change their lifestyles for the greater good?

I'm going to keep posting on facebook until someone fixes it!

Dr Crayfish

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm 42 now - be grand:D

I presume you don't have kids then? If you don't, you've already done your part!!

Dr Crayfish

HigginsJ wrote: »

Oh good, more Green lecturing :rolleyes:

No one is lecturing. Just trying to open up a discussion on it, it's a pretty daunting situation facing us, and I just find it so utterly bewildering that people wear blinkers when it's mentioned.

Peregrine

HigginsJ wrote: »

Oh good, more Green lecturing :rolleyes:

It's funny how some people are almost frightened by the topic that they immediately hit out at anyone who tries to start a discussion about it.

sbsquarepants

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I presume you don't have kids then? If you don't, you've already done your part!!

Eh, about that. I have 5.
But i'll make sure 2.5 of them are environmentalists just to even things out.

In my defence, I'm not really much of a consumer. I think a lot of people just buy for the sake of buying, I hate shopping - I buy only what I need. My oldest daughter is 21, my oldest pair of shoes are about 25!

They still look great by the way, you should always buy really good shoes:D

archer22

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

No one is lecturing. Just trying to open up a discussion on it, it's a pretty daunting situation facing us, and I just find it so utterly bewildering that people wear blinkers when it's mentioned.

Actually there is nothing really that can be done about it.The few half hearted measures that are being done will just slow down the inevitable end game a little.
Reality is Humans are not going to stop doing what they are doing..ie mindless breeding, consuming and polluting everything and killing every other species on the planet because we want to eat,skin or make jewellery out of them.
Best end result is if Humans went quickly before all the others are extinct so the earth might have a hope of returning to something near the paradise it once was.

Galway_Old_Man

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

The seven deadly things we’re doing to trash the planet (and human life with it)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/seven-deadly-things-trash-planet-human-life

Can I add one?

8 - Cutting down forests, using vast amount of chemicals in treating same to produce newspapers. Using a huge distribution network of CO2 spewing vehicles and planes to get your paper delivered to every shop you can. Oh and then putting all the content on the web (accessible to 90%+ of your readers), rendering the daily environmental destruction perpetrated meaningless.

Ehh Guardian???

Dr Crayfish

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

Can I add one?

8 - Cutting down forests, using vast amount of chemicals in treating same to produce newspapers. Using a huge distribution network of CO2 spewing vehicles and planes to get your paper delivered to every shop you can. Oh and then putting all the content on the web (accessible to 90%+ of your readers), rendering the daily environmental destruction perpetrated meaningless.

Ehh Guardian???

Ha! You got them! Article is a hoax, carry on as you were folks.

Galway_Old_Man

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Ha! You got them! Article is a hoax, carry on as you were folks.

The article is a usual Guardian pandering to the home crowd. Use some serious issues, blow them up, ascribe them to their preferred bogey men and serve it up with a side sauce of the fact that people have always deferred to the fear of the impending doom/Armageddon.

Roger_007

The biggest threat to the survival of the human race is medical science.
Species of life only survive by evolution.....the survival of the fittest. Medical advances mean that almost everyone survives long enough to reproduce. Defective genes will become ever more prevalent in the population thereby throwing evolution into reverse.
As this process will take many generations, I'm not personally worried by it. In the meantime I will avail of any medical advances available to make my life as easy as possible.

Badly Drunk Boy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

We need to colonise Mars. Admittedly we will probably end up destroying it too...

It's not as it there's loads on Mars to destroy. Get rid of a good chunk of humans, and Earth (as it is now) is still a much greater prospect than Mars.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm 42 now - be grand:D

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I presume you don't have kids then? If you don't, you've already done your part!!

I'm 43 and I've no children so I've done my bit. And I've never driven a car, so there's another thing. And I haven't been on a plane in over 3 years.

Hmmm. Maybe I haven't lived. Maybe I should just end it all. (And there's another plus for the planet! :pac: )

eeguy

Problem is to solve these issues you have to put millions out of work.

Want to stop consumerism? Millions of factory workers out on their ear.

Forestry, car manufacturer, oil production, intensive farming etc etc etc is all the same.

Great doc a while back about logging in the Amazon. Guy says "surely you know the environmental impact of what you're doing. "
Logger says "Yeah, but it's either this or starve."

Unless you can make it profitable to save the world, no one will do it.

sbsquarepants

eeguy wrote: »

."

Unless you can make it profitable to save the world, no one will do it.

This is the truth. A bloke I work with is mad about animals, he does be up in arms about bushmeat, people eating monkeys etc. I always give him the same answer, if it comes to choice between starving and eating an endangered monkey, monkey sambos it is.
I'd rather the monkeys be extinct tomorrow than me be extinct today!

archer22

Roger_007 wrote: »

The biggest threat to the survival of the human race is medical science.
Species of life only survive by evolution.....the survival of the fittest. Medical advances mean that almost everyone survives long enough to reproduce. Defective genes will become ever more prevalent in the population thereby throwing evolution into reverse.
As this process will take many generations, I'm not personally worried by it. In the meantime I will avail of any medical advances available to make my life as easy as possible.

Medical science also screws up Human's natural control mechanism.Disease's actually have a purpose in the order of things.That of course is population control.
We have overridden Earths natural mechanism..and got a great result short term, but a result that will be far from great in the long term.
Now don't get me wrong I think medicine is fantastic in ending suffering...but Earth does not operate on our terms.

Dr Crayfish

eeguy wrote: »

Problem is to solve these issues you have to put millions out of work.

Want to stop consumerism? Millions of factory workers out on their ear.

Forestry, car manufacturer, oil production, intensive farming etc etc etc is all the same.

Great doc a while back about logging in the Amazon. Guy says "surely you know the environmental impact of what you're doing. "
Logger says "Yeah, but it's either this or starve."

Unless you can make it profitable to save the world, no one will do it.

Right but maybe with automation of jobs and a focus on renewables and not using as much stuff, we could introduce some kind of minimum living wage for everyone, whether they're working or not. I think they're already talking about doing it in Holland at the moment.
We just need to stop focusing on growth and getting richer and richer. I think if resources were divided out a bit better we may last longer.

K-9

Peregrine wrote: »

It's funny how some people are almost frightened by the topic that they immediately hit out at anyone who tries to start a discussion about it.

It's part of the climate paradox. It's such a massive issue that many people lash out at it, give up or end up denying it.

In fairness repeating we're all doomed over and over isn't a winning strategy!

Steve F

archer22 wrote: »

Actually there is nothing really that can be done about it.The few half hearted measures that are being done will just slow down the inevitable end game a little.
Reality is Humans are not going to stop doing what they are doing..ie mindless breeding, consuming and polluting everything and killing every other species on the planet because we want to eat,skin or make jewellery out of them.
Best end result is if Humans went quickly before all the others are extinct so the earth might have a hope of returning to something near the paradise it once was.

This ^^
It's not a case of "if" but "when" :eek:

ScumLord

It's hard to stay positive about it all, especially at this time of year when people completely give in to their desire to live in a fantasy land where the consequences of their rampant consumerism can be set aside to make magic for the children. When these children grow up and have to live in the world we cut down to give them santa they'll probably be sickened.

RandomName2

The single big problem is human population, but this problem varies greatly from country to country.

While east asia and pacific are by far the largest in terms of population, they have got their birth rates under control. The population of north America and Europe has flat-lined (in one or two counties in Europe it is actually too low). In most of Africa it is way too high.

LLMMLL

Roger_007 wrote: »

The biggest threat to the survival of the human race is medical science.
Species of life only survive by evolution.....the survival of the fittest. Medical advances mean that almost everyone survives long enough to reproduce. Defective genes will become ever more prevalent in the population thereby throwing evolution into reverse.
As this process will take many generations, I'm not personally worried by it. In the meantime I will avail of any medical advances available to make my life as easy as possible.

The reason these "defective" genes are passed on is that they're no longer "defective".

Dr Crayfish

RandomName2 wrote: »

The single big problem is human population, but this problem varies greatly from country to country.

While east asia and pacific are by far the largest in terms of population, they have got their birth rates under control. The population of north America and Europe has flat-lined (in one or two counties in Europe it is actually too low). In most of Africa it is way too high.

Right. But one European probably consumes 200 times as much as a poor African. I don't know the exact figures, but I remember reading somewhere that an American consumes about 350 times as much resources as a Bangladeshi.

So we can't really point the finger at uneducated Africans who have loads of babies.

RandomName2

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Right. But one European probably consumes 200 times as much as a poor African. I don't know the exact figures, but I remember reading somewhere that an American consumes about 350 times as much resources as a Bangladeshi.

So we can't really point the finger at uneducated Africans who have loads of babies.

You're right - the consumption rate of Europeans is currently unsustainable in its current form. The only silver lining is that at least it is not really increasing.

Not really sure about 200* and 350*. For certain resources, sure (some of which are pretty damaging - particularly in relation to heavy metals), but food is a pretty much fixed quantity (someone in France may consume twice as much food as someone in Nigeria, but it won't be 200*). More to the point, both industry and farming is likely to be less efficient in sub-Saharan Africa, meaning that more farmland will be required for the equivalent level of production.

The two big changes needed for both the west and east is the methods used to produce food (for instance the way in which fishing is conducted is having a devastating impact on our oceans) and move to electric motors for our vehicles (which would potentially allow all our transportation to be powered by non fossil fuel sources).

sbsquarepants

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not really sure about 200* and 350*. ).

Seems extremely high to me also, but I'd easily believe 10 or 20 times. Consumption doesn't necessarily mean actually consuming. A shocking amount of food produced is binned, or even produced just to be destroyed due to things like stupid farm trade deals and so on.
Giant edge of town discount shops selling bulk quantities of food that you'll never get through but it's cheaper to buy more than you need in bulk and throw half it out, than it is to buy just what you need are a big "problem" in the states.
It's not a problem for the shoppers, they're getting cheaper stuff but environmentally it makes no sense.

Dr Crayfish

Right check this out. Now Europeans aren't usually as bad as Americans but it gives a clearer picture as to who are the problem here

https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm

screamer

don't worry the earth has always found a way to shake off its inhabitants humans will be no different.

Maximus Alexander

archer22 wrote: »

Actually there is nothing really that can be done about it.The few half hearted measures that are being done will just slow down the inevitable end game a little.
Reality is Humans are not going to stop doing what they are doing..ie mindless breeding, consuming and polluting everything and killing every other species on the planet because we want to eat,skin or make jewellery out of them.
Best end result is if Humans went quickly before all the others are extinct so the earth might have a hope of returning to something near the paradise it once was.

I don't understand this attitude. What difference does the condition of the Earth make to a vast, uncaring universe, if there are none of us left around to give a crap? It's just a massive ball of mostly-iron with an envelope of gas around it. It doesn't have any feelings.

We need to solve our rape of the environment for our own benefit and that of future generations of humans. Not for a rock's sake.

Dr Crayfish

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't understand this attitude. What difference does the condition of the Earth make to a vast, uncaring universe, if there are none of us left around to give a crap? It's just a massive ball of mostly-iron with an envelope of gas around it. It doesn't have any feelings.

We need to solve our rape of the environment for our own benefit and that of future generations of humans. Not for a rock's sake.

Maybe sentient beings might evolve that aren't as stupid and shirt sighted as we are?