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

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Do you really think younger politicians will be any different?

No, I don't expect them to change, but I expect the opinions of their constituents to change. Politicians are after votes, they will adopt policies to get those votes even if it goes against their personal values. Staying in power is far more important than doing the right thing.

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

You could adopt (Although the costs are really high).

True. I don't really need convincing that it's a good idea, though

Atlantic Dawn

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarctic-iceberg-breaks-free-of-larsen-c-ice-shelf

Twice the size of Luxembourg, yikes

An iceberg created during the summer months, who would have ever thought it would happen then, I mean why would ice melt during the summer, the media and climate change wafflers really don't have a clue :rolleyes:

Dr Crayfish

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

An iceberg created during the summer months, who would have ever thought it would happen then, I mean why would ice melt during the summer, the media and climate change wafflers really don't have a clue :rolleyes:

Are you aware of how big the iceberg is? It's not normal.

Atlantic Dawn

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Are you aware of how big the iceberg is? It's not normal.

Just over half the size of the worlds largest from 14 years ago...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_B-15

Yourself isit

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Why do we have to try?

You fall out of a plane at 10,000 feet. You are dead. It might take a minute to reach the ground but it's already over.

You could pray or flap your arms real fast but... you know?

Sure, we can delay the inevitable, but when the population jumps from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 2.5 billion in 1950 to almost 7.5 billion in 2017? That's free fall.

So we have all these potential solutions and that's great but historically every great advancement in human society has come with a corresponding population "boom". Can the planet actually handle that? Can our societies actually handle that.

What happens if we bring it up to 10 or 15 or 20 billion humans?

The Sun will die some day. Why should we try anything?

I think this kind of defeatism is caused by the disasterism of much of the rhetoric.

MysticMonk

Disposal of plastic as rubbish and particularly in the sea.

Samaris

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Possibly. Or maybe just realistic?

It's already over.

Like falling out of an airplane without a parachute. You'd have 1 to 2 minutes before you hit the ground and die. Might as well enjoy the view on the way down.

The damage we have done to the environment is irreversible now. At best we can delay the inevitable by doing all of the things suggested on the thread.

We keep reproducing though. If you bought an electric car and stopped using plastic bags but decided to have 2 kids then that's a net loss to the environment.

We've got over 7 billion people on the planet now. Should we drive that up to 8, 9, 10 billion or maybe it would be better to go back down to 2 or 3 billion?

There's a massive contradiction when people resolve to be more "environmentally friendly" but go ahead and bring yet more humans into the system.

Every new person born puts a burden on the system. From food, healthcare, clothing etc there is a massive resource drain.

Every day where matter is turned into energy. Every day where a garbage bag full of stuff that can never be reused fills up.

The best thing to do would be to just not have kids enjoy your life however you see fit and then die.

My use of a few extra plastic bags or quick drive down to the shops for a couple of steaks on the weekend is nothing compared to the folks who've decided to have kids.

Anyone who thinks we can save the world or save ourselves or save the environment is delusional.

Yes, it is too late to keep the world as it is. The question now is what can we prevent, how bad will we let it get. To argue that the world will end someday anyway is a ridiculous argument. Why do you even get out of bed in the morning if you're just going to die someday.

It's true that population pressures play a major role. But it's not the sole solution, and it will not work alone either. Population pressures will subside to some extent, a population plateau is expected in the next 50 years or so. European countries, the US and probably China will start to shrink, it will be repopulated to some extent by Africa, India and Latin America may level off. One way to deal with that is to get the countries with the highest birth rates up to a standard of living that allows a population to breed at replacement level and slightly below rather than having to rely on having many children. That's not an easy option either, but it's a lot more likely to work than a one child policy. A no child policy just can't work, not unless everyone decides to murder every person they see under the age of X coupled with mass sterilisation programs and does anyone really see that happening?

All this aside, if the population stays as it is at the moment and just does not have a replacement population, in the short term we'd keep producing the same amount of waste into what is already a moving paradigm, followed by rapid decline and a large number of industrial accidents as people die out faster than every energy producing facility (amongst others) can be shut down. Not to mention the dangers of an aging population trying to keep these industries going safely. So it's impractical, somewhat unhelpful, unpopular and suicidal.

Short of the "nuke the house to kill the tarantula" approach, there are ways to limit the damage, even now. We can't fully predict what the damage will be wherever we manage to hold it and things are moving faster than anyone dared predict (not least because of the mule-headed and the liars that held up solutions by accusing scientists trying to warn the world of disastorism or careerism). But basically our moves now decide how much of the world remains habitable without huge loss of life and/or destruction of economy in paying for adaptation. "Let's go extinct or do nothing" are bad choices and not the only ones.

It is far too late for the actions of individuals to make a difference, the world's industry must take the hard steps, forced by politicians - chosen by individuals. But you can make small decisions that impact whether you are marginally helping or marginally making it worse.

Silver Lynel

Samaris wrote: »

To argue that the world will end someday anyway is a ridiculous argument. Why do you even get out of bed in the morning if you're just going to die someday?

As I said, might as well enjoy the view on the way down.

Our very existence on this planet converts matter into energy, whether we are talking about mining coal or just eating vegetables.

There is a finite amount of matter here and more than 7 billion of us. Might as well enjoy it while we can.

The attitudes of "well, I'm alright jack" seems pretty realistic to me.

Yourself isit

Silver Lynel wrote: »

As I said, might as well enjoy the view on the way down.

Our very existence on this planet converts matter into energy, whether we are talking about mining coal or just eating vegetables.

There is a finite amount of matter here and more than 7 billion of us. Might as well enjoy it while we can.

The attitudes of "well, I'm alright jack" seems pretty realistic to me.

As I said disasterism leads to I'm all right Jackism or acceptance.

It's quite possible to maintain standards of living with existing technologies. We just need to use them.

And pretty much all life converts matter into energy. And life itself is energy converted into mass.

BillyBobBS

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yup thats it, lets just throw our hands in the air and give up. that always works!

we have to try at least

The populations of Africa, India, South America, Middle East etc.. are exploding. They will all eventually want to have a certain standard of living and that's simply not sustainable. As i said before, nature will take back what's hers eventually no point sweating over it.

Samaris

I strongly suspect the new "climate change isn't happening so we don't need to do anything about it" is "climate change is happening and we're all doomed ("by natural cycles" as optional extra) so there's no point in doing anything" .:rolleyes:

On the small plus side, this new development aside, the amount of people scornfully saying that climate change is a big hoax and isn't real has dropped significantly, even in the past year, even in the past six months or so. I've talked about climate change on and off when threads arose for years on Boards and it used to be a way higher proportion arguing that the scientists were liars lying for money (they rarely, if ever, mentioned the vast amounts of money in big Oil and other settled energy-producing industries, it was kinda amazing).

Sure, some still hold out (and some of them -still- have a grasp of the science that can only charitably be called "rudimentary"), but there's a few that would still hold out if the Thwaites glacier dropped into the sea and they were wading through Miami.

RE standards of living; actually, we'd be more sustainable as a race if the vast majority of the world -did- have decent living standards, preferably built on renewable energy. Mining for precious raw materials in regions that are currently too dangerous would continue to be a bit of an issue, as these industries tend to be incredibly destructive, but overall, a decent standard of living worldwide is more politically impossible than impossible to sustain. Especially as populations do level out when standards of living are high.

Sam Kade

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Work on your reading comprehension. Here, have some homework.

What don't you understand about the question?

Sam Kade

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I go to Dunnes every day on my lunch break. I've started taking the plastic off the veg I buy and leaving it there, and taking my veg in a brown paper bag, which they provide. Little daily wins like this are good!

All that does is save yourself from disposing of the plastic, the plastic is still there to be disposed of. So it isn't exactly a little daily win for you.

Widdershins

Sam Kade wrote: »

All that does is save yourself from disposing of the plastic, the plastic is still there to be disposed of. So it isn't exactly a little daily win for you.

It also sends a strong message to retailers who in turn might convey that message to manufacturers. It's one of the best ways to object to excess/unnecessary plastic packaging.

I'm seeing more companies make a point of using biodegradable outer packaging and biodegradable beads as cushioning. It's actually a selling point now.

Sam Kade

Widdershins wrote: »

It also sends a strong message to retailers who in turn might convey that message to manufacturers. It's one of the best ways to object to excess/unnecessary plastic packaging.

I'm seeing more companies make a point of using biodegradable outer packaging and biodegradable beads as cushioning. It's actually a selling point now.

Which in turn the produce will have a shorter lifespan and food will be more expensive. That's if that plan did work as most take the plastic.

Widdershins

Sam Kade wrote: »

Which in turn the produce will have a shorter lifespan and food will be more expensive. That's if that plan did work as most take the plastic.

It wouldn't have a shorter lifespan Sam. Plastic shortens the shelf life of fruit and veg because it makes them sweat. It has holes in it anyway so it's not airtight. And on the same shelves the same products are usually also sold loose, so it's clearly doable. It's a preference customers have developed because they mistakenly think the plastic is hygienic. Probably the same people who think wonky looking or even slightly less than symmetrical veg are no good!

I grow my own and store much of it for a good while and it wouldn't benefit from being plastic wrapped.

PopePalpatine

Sam Kade wrote: »

All that does is save yourself from disposing of the plastic, the plastic is still there to be disposed of. So it isn't exactly a little daily win for you.

Did the possibility that less of them would be made, or that they'd be made at a slower rate, ever cross your mind?

Silver Lynel

Yourself isit wrote: »

I think this kind of defeatism is caused by the disasterism of much of the rhetoric.

You know, I think you may just have hit the nail on the head there.

I do remember watching the Al Gore documentary way back and the Leonardo DiCaprio one more recently and thinking "well, we are all f*cked".

Nothing has changed really to make me think that there is a good solution for this.

The reaction from friends when Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement had me wondering about these people who have 2 or 3 children and who are supposedly totally committed to saving the environment. Why have 3 kids if you care so much?

Defeatism is right though. I just don't feel like there is much that can be done other than to delay the inevitable.

Silver Lynel

Samaris wrote: »

I strongly suspect the new "climate change isn't happening so we don't need to do anything about it" is "climate change is happening and we're all doomed ("by natural cycles" as optional extra) so there's no point in doing anything" .:rolleyes:

Not how I see it at all.

I literally believe that 7.5 billion people is too many and the world can't handle that level of population no matter what we do.

The only thing we can say right now is that so many people have such awful living conditions that they aren't capable of doing the amount of damage that the average American or European can do. That's not really a positive from the point of view of those people living in poverty though.

Silver Lynel

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Did the possibility that less of them would be made, or that they'd be made at a slower rate, ever cross your mind?

Hahaha. I love the snarky responses.

You basically contribute nothing to the conversation other than smugness and superiority.

Grayson

Just read this and thought of this thread.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/15/humanity-is-cutting-down-the-tree-of-life-warn-scientists

More than 300 mammal species have been eradicated by human activities, say researchers

More than 300 different mammal species have been eradicated by human activities. The new research calculates the total unique evolutionary history that has been lost as a result at a startling 2.5bn years.

Furthermore, even if the destruction of wild areas, poaching and pollution were ended within 50 years and extinction rates fell back to natural levels, it would still take 5-7 million years for the natural world to recover.

Many scientists think a sixth mass extinction of life on Earth has begun, propelled by human destruction of wildlife, and 83% of wild mammals have already gone. The new work puts this in the context of the evolution and extinction of species that occurred for billions of years before modern humans arrived.