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

Yourself isit

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

The reason you're living the cushy life you have now is due to your forefathers you realise that?

If you mean building on science yes. If you mean we are using wealth they built up - no.

PopePalpatine

Sam Kade wrote: »

Just send all the moaners that say we are doomed to another planet

Sending the oil giants and their hordes of useful idiots instead would be more helpful.

Yourself isit

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why would anyone ever vote for a politician who's policies were for us to have less stuff? They wont, therefore there's not really a way out of this mess, unless somehow there's a mass spiritual movement where people just brush off the idea of having lots of stuff being the be all and end all of life.

Nobody is going to vote for a politician whose policies offer less stuff except perhaps the very rich who won't be affected by the super austerity.
Prince Charles I am looking at you.

One man's spend is another man's income. If we ban planes and cars and say iPhones and other electronic equipment, if we stop eating meat we will put out if work car manufacturers, component suppliers, mechanics and petrol pump attendants, foxconn workers and software developers, chip manufacturers and gps chip makers as well as destroying modern tv and music revenue, and pasture farmers. Aircraft workers and their suppliers will be out of work, tourism still largely cease and airline workers will be left go, as well as most hospitality workers and most retail workers effected by downstream effects.

You probably wouldn't vote for this.

Government revenues will collapse as unemployment overwhelms the system and there is nothing to tax

Alternatively we can stick a plug in a few cows arses, speed up the already exponentially growing solar and wind deployments and reverse the existing carbon effects with sinks - like seeding iron in the sea.

snowflaker

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.

Defective genes means boardsies live longer...

Temptamperu

Like Bill Burr says... "lets start sinking cruise ships indiscriminately" that will sort it.

Yourself isit

Temptamperu wrote: »

Like Bill Burr says... "lets start sinking cruise ships indiscriminately" that will sort it.

Why stop there?

The ratio of biomass locked up in the bodies of humans, cattle, pigs, chicken and other domesticated animals versus all other animals is a disgrace. It's as if the world is a huge human-invented pyramid scheme where the resources of food energy, protein and biomass in general are funnelled up to be used in the production of human bodies at the expense of all others. And not satisfied with that we demand the highest levels of material comfort while we *are* alive to sooth and block out the existential angst and mental discomforts which come with being a human. 20,000 years ago there was probably only a million or less of our ancestors across the whole planet and way more species of animals getting to exist, now its just a big mess of depressed zombies burning through the earths resources and they're not even enjoying the pleasures it should bring because they have had them their whole lives and are acclimitised to them.

BillyBobBS

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.

Personally im not frightened in the least, i just don't think about it that much and if we are all honest the majority of us don't. You think people are driving small or electric cars, getting solar panels, recycling etc.. because they care about the planet? No it's because it saves them money, period.

It's like this absolute moron of a family that live two doors down from me that drives the electric car and does "Eco warrior" type stuff and yet he travels for business on an airplane a few times a month and they go away on foreign holidays twice or three time a year, on an airplane. Sure if they genuinely cared about the environment they'd use a sail boat to travel abroad ffs. Idiots.

All the people who bought those post 2008 diesel cars didn't do it because they suddenly gave a hoot about the ice caps, they did it because the road tax would be cheaper and the hilarious thing is it turns out these diesel cars are worse for the environment than the petrol ones. :pac:

Sam Kade

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Extremely selfish moronic attitude. Do you have kids?

What do you think will happen the planet?

Sam Kade

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Sending the oil giants and their hordes of useful idiots instead would be more helpful.

Do you use any oil :rolleyes:

Widdershins

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Personally im not frightened in the least, i just don't think about it that much and if we are all honest the majority of us don't. You think people are driving small or electric cars, getting solar panels, recycling etc.. because they care about the planet? No it's because it saves them money, period.

It's like this absolute moron of a family that live two doors down from me that drives the electric car and does "Eco warrior" type stuff and yet he travels for business on an airplane a few times a month and they go away on foreign holidays twice or three time a year, on an airplane. Sure if they genuinely cared about the environment they'd use a sail boat to travel abroad ffs. Idiots.

All the people who bought those post 2008 diesel cars didn't do it because they suddenly gave a hoot about the ice caps, they did it because the road tax would be cheaper and the hilarious thing is it turns out these diesel cars are worse for the environment than the petrol ones. :pac:

I'm not frightened but I do think about this. Seeing a big decline in the wildlife and the natural world around me over the years, and reading ecologists charting that decline over their own long lives, is what gets to me.

That family are being hypocritical I too find that blatant hypocrisy really annoying. Maybe it is a fashionable lifestyle thing for them but for every family like that I know people who put enough thought into their actions.

The idea that you're too small a drop in the ocean is the dispiriting thing and to know others care too is motivating. It also makes me happy to see that children are being educated about this stuff and schools foster a love of the natural world these days. Alright some people can be sanctimonious PITAs about it but it does matter.

I think the governments have to implement widespread changes and if jobs are lost along the line that is indeed regrettable. It's a balancing act.

As for needing and wanting or sacrificing ''stuff'', it is just a matter of evaluating what ''stuff' you really do want and what you're only filling your life with on impulse. You can have less but much better stuff that lasts instead.

BillyBobBS

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm not frightened but I do think about this. Seeing a big decline in the wildlife and the natural world around me over the years, and reading ecologists charting that decline over their own long lives, is what gets to me.

That family are being hypocritical I too find that blatant hypocrisy really annoying. Maybe it is a fashionable lifestyle thing for them but for every family like that I know people who put enough thought into their actions.

The idea that you're too small a drop in the ocean is the dispiriting thing and to know others care too is motivating. It also makes me happy to see that children are being educated about this stuff and schools foster a love of the natural world these days. Alright some people can be sanctimonious PITAs about it but it does matter.

I think the governments have to implement widespread changes and if jobs are lost along the line that is indeed regrettable. It's a balancing act.

As for needing and wanting or sacrificing ''stuff'', it is just a matter of evaluating what ''stuff' you really do want and what you're only filling your life with on impulse. You can have less but much better stuff that lasts instead.

I don't mean this in a bad way but "It's the economy stupid". No government is going to sacrifice jobs for the environment. Governments think of the next election not 50-100 years down the road. Sad but there you are.

Sam Kade

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I don't mean this in a bad way but "It's the economy stupid". No government is going to sacrifice jobs for the environment. Governments think of the next election not 50-100 years down the road. Sad but there you are.

What do you think they should do make everyone go back to horse drawn carriages ans sailing boats? Why are you using electricity with your laptop?

Sam Kade

Sam Kade wrote: »

What do you think they should do make everyone go back to horse drawn carriages ans sailing boats? Why are you using electricity with your laptop?

Eventually humanity will return to a world without electricity. the long-term viability of clean energy is a myth. If it wasn't a myth it would have been cracked and made widespread by now seeing as so many well-intentioned geniuses have dedicated their lives to it. If it possible that billions of peoples lives could be sustained at current or slightly lower levels using clean energy but for political reasons humanity is using up it's one off supply of cheap, energy-dense fuels then as a species we deserve what's coming to us.

edit, no actually we don't, since I don't believe if most people actually thought deeply about it they would allow this to happen.

Yourself isit

Sam Kade wrote: »

Do you use any oil :rolleyes:

He's a motor sport fan.

Yourself isit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Eventually humanity will return to a world without electricity. the long-term viability of clean energy is a myth. If it wasn't a myth it would have been cracked and made widespread by now seeing as so many well-intentioned geniuses have dedicated their lives to it. If it possible that billions of peoples lives could be sustained at current or slightly lower levels using clean energy but for political reasons humanity is using up it's one off supply of cheap, energy-dense fuels then as a species we deserve what's coming to us.

edit, no actually we don't, since I don't believe if most people actually thought deeply about it they would allow this to happen.

So are you going to give up that laptop or not?

Yourself isit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Eventually humanity will return to a world without electricity. the long-term viability of clean energy is a myth. If it wasn't a myth it would have been cracked and made widespread by now seeing as so many well-intentioned geniuses have dedicated their lives to it. If it possible that billions of peoples lives could be sustained at current or slightly lower levels using clean energy but for political reasons humanity is using up it's one off supply of cheap, energy-dense fuels then as a species we deserve what's coming to us.

edit, no actually we don't, since I don't believe if most people actually thought deeply about it they would allow this to happen.

I mean it has been cracked. We just need the political will.

Yourself isit

Yourself isit wrote: »

So are you going to give up that laptop or not?

I'd actually say having so many showers, people in urban areas demanding to own cars because it confers higher status and convenience than using public transport, eating selfish quantities of meat, eating weird non-local food imported from abroad etc. are things that we can change which would provide much more bang for their buck environmentally and in terms of slowing down resource-depletion. So no, I'm not giving up my laptop!

Yourself isit

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm not frightened but I do think about this. Seeing a big decline in the wildlife and the natural world around me over the years, and reading ecologists charting that decline over their own long lives, is what gets to me.

That family are being hypocritical I too find that blatant hypocrisy really annoying. Maybe it is a fashionable lifestyle thing for them but for every family like that I know people who put enough thought into their actions.

The idea that you're too small a drop in the ocean is the dispiriting thing and to know others care too is motivating. It also makes me happy to see that children are being educated about this stuff and schools foster a love of the natural world these days. Alright some people can be sanctimonious PITAs about it but it does matter.

I think the governments have to implement widespread changes and if jobs are lost along the line that is indeed regrettable. It's a balancing act.

As for needing and wanting or sacrificing ''stuff'', it is just a matter of evaluating what ''stuff' you really do want and what you're only filling your life with on impulse. You can have less but much better stuff that lasts instead.

Read my posts. It's very easy to demand changes unless your job is at risk. And what job isn't at risk if we believe the scare stories?

Instead let's solve the problem.

Humanity is going to need to get its population down before the energy runs out because the factory farming and agriculture, food-supply chain managment that sustains (most of) the worlds 7.5 billion people needs a lot of energy (eg. to produce fertiliser, power farm machinery, transport food etc.). If there are 10 billion people just when energy starts to become very expensive and then back down to 7.5 billion by the time fossil fuels have become depleted, we're going to find it impossible to feed everyone. In 1800 the population was about only 1 billion and it was hard to feed everyone, most being undernourished and having much lower intakes of meat to today, and most people were farmers growing their own food. Feeding 7.5 billion people in the 22nd century who expect the high living standards of their 21st century ancestors when there is no fossil fuels to "pay for it" will be a challenge to say the least.

LordSutch

1/ Polluting our rivers & seas.
2/ Polluting the air we breathe.
3/ Polluting the ground.
4/ Burying nuclear waste.
5/ Overfishing the seas.
6/ Making other species extinct.
7/ Overpopulating the planet.

Widdershins

Yourself isit wrote: »

Read my posts. It's very easy to demand changes unless your job is at risk. And what job isn't at risk if we believe the scare stories?

Instead let's solve the problem.

You can't expect people to think all the way down the line to predict who might lose their job if they make a positive change like cutting out the buying of novelty crap made of plastic. You can't please everyone. We'd be paralysed by indecision if we did. Maybe the owners of such businesses will be forced to look into a more sustainable product range. Maybe it will have a positive impact and keep people in jobs, just different jobs, in some cases.

LordSutch

LordSutch wrote: »

1/ Polluting our rivers & seas.
2/ Polluting the air we breathe.
3/ Polluting the ground.
4/ Burying nuclear waste.
5/ Overfishing the seas.
6/ Making other species extinct.
7/ Overpopulating the planet.

This one is huge. As a species we are f'ucking stupid. We have no sense of proportion as to how important it is fish stocks don't become depleted, how long it takes to replenish them, how we can't continue to maintain billions of humans on the planet and expect to feed them by sweeping the seas of fish. Fisherman do it because it's a living for them, I know. But we are running out of fish! Centuries are a blink in history .. like millimetres compared to a football field if such a length represented 10 million years (which itself is just a moderate chunk of geological history) but the damage that will have been done to this planet over a few centuries, from the perspective of its being able to support humans in general in the long run, will turn out to be enormous.
And in fairness to anyone who feels bothered by me saying this sort of stuff and immediately wants to call me a hypocrite for saying it while doing many of the same stuff as you, you are right ... it might be best if we all just enjoy the party while it lasts because realistically even if 10% of people engage in some degree of self-restraint or alteration of behaviour for the purpose of fixing all these problems, humanity is still faced with a massive resource crisis within the next few centuries and thereafter. Human nature makes it that we feel powerless to effect change when we are only one out of innumerable others and in fairness it's basically true!

Pictures Of Lilly

HigginsJ wrote: »

Oh good, more Green lecturing :rolleyes:

It's what we need. This is more important than the cure for cancer (which is never going to happen). There's no new invention we need. This is all there is - ans it's the only thing that each individual is actually capable of doing.

PopePalpatine

Sam Kade wrote: »

Do you use any oil :rolleyes:

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

Yourself isit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Humanity is going to need to get its population down before the energy runs out because the factory farming and agriculture, food-supply chain managment that sustains (most of) the worlds 7.5 billion people needs a lot of energy (eg. to produce fertiliser, power farm machinery, transport food etc.). If there are 10 billion people just when energy starts to become very expensive and then back down to 7.5 billion by the time fossil fuels have become depleted, we're going to find it impossible to feed everyone. In 1800 the population was about only 1 billion and it was hard to feed everyone, most being undernourished and having much lower intakes of meat to today, and most people were farmers growing their own food. Feeding 7.5 billion people in the 22nd century who expect the high living standards of their 21st century ancestors when there is no fossil fuels to "pay for it" will be a challenge to say the least.

Why do you continue to believe that the only energy sources are carbon based?

Yourself isit

Widdershins wrote: »

You can't expect people to think all the way down the line to predict who might lose their job if they make a positive change like cutting out the buying of novelty crap made of plastic. You can't please everyone. We'd be paralysed by indecision if we did. Maybe the owners of such businesses will be forced to look into a more sustainable product range. Maybe it will have a positive impact and keep people in jobs, just different jobs, in some cases.

Economics doesn't work like that - Google the paradox of thrift.

In any case it isn't a few novelty items that are being scorned but most electronics, meat, cars, planes etc. If we stopped buying those things the economy would collapse.

Samaris

Pouring vast amounts of plastics into the environment.

Even those disposable bags that replaced the old plastic ones aren't actually biodegradable. They degrade, sure, but they degrade into tiny little polymers that then make their way to the sea (as most stuff does - look up the Pacific Garbage Patch). These polymers are then ingested by plankton and start working up the food chain. And that's assuming the plankton doesn't die out because its filling itself with useless plastic rather than nutrients.

We have no idea what the end result of eating this stuff is, for us or for other larger marine species. Larger marine species also end up eating "nurdles", those little globs of plastic that are melted down by manufacturers to make - well, whatever they want to make, of which there are quite literally billions in the ocean as well. Usually floating near the surface, in the rich photosynthetic part of the sea.

This is not a problem that will go away, not for ten thousand years or more unless we figure something out. We're showing little enough effort that way so far.

The attitudes of "well, I'm alright jack" are extraordinarily selfish and short-sighted. Sure, a lot of people might wring their hands and flail about what they can do, but at the very least they're not in total denial. Colonise Mars to escape climate change? Bullsh*t. Colonise a planet that -maybe- has traces of water (which we can't use), exudes poisonous gases, has no atmosphere and no ability to grow food. Why on earth would people prefer to live in spacesuits on a desolate wasteland, growing food carefully in hydroponics bays (or whatever) rather than not fcuk up the planet, the green, water-filled, atmosphere-possessing world that we can actually..y'know, live and grow food on. Make no mistake about it, if Earth had to be "evacuated" to Mars, don't think that any of us would be going on that adventure, unless you happen to have a few million in reserve to buy a place.

Drumpot

Samaris wrote: »

Pouring vast amounts of plastics into the environment.

Even those disposable bags that replaced the old plastic ones aren't actually biodegradable. They degrade, sure, but they degrade into tiny little polymers that then make their way to the sea (as most stuff does - look up the Pacific Garbage Patch). These polymers are then ingested by plankton and start working up the food chain. And that's assuming the plankton doesn't die out because its filling itself with useless plastic rather than nutrients.

We have no idea what the end result of eating this stuff is, for us or for other larger marine species. Larger marine species also end up eating "nurdles", those little globs of plastic that are melted down by manufacturers to make - well, whatever they want to make, of which there are quite literally billions in the ocean as well. Usually floating near the surface, in the rich photosynthetic part of the sea.

This is not a problem that will go away, not for ten thousand years or more unless we figure something out. We're showing little enough effort that way so far.

The attitudes of "well, I'm alright jack" are extraordinarily selfish and short-sighted. Sure, a lot of people might wring their hands and flail about what they can do, but at the very least they're not in total denial. Colonise Mars to escape climate change? Bullsh*t. Colonise a planet that -maybe- has traces of water (which we can't use), exudes poisonous gases, has no atmosphere and no ability to grow food. Why on earth would people prefer to live in spacesuits on a desolate wasteland, growing food carefully in hydroponics bays (or whatever) rather than not fcuk up the planet, the green, water-filled, atmosphere-possessing world that we can actually..y'know, live and grow food on. Make no mistake about it, if Earth had to be "evacuated" to Mars, don't think that any of us would be going on that adventure, unless you happen to have a few million in reserve to buy a place.

People like Neil De Grasse think it's easier to figure out how to fix global warming and earth problems , then it is to colonise Mars...

But even at that, moving planet because we destroyed our own is such a pathetic copout. It's like a family personally destroying a good neighbourhood and moving to a new one without making any fundamental changes to themselves to stop them destroying their new surroundings...

I think of the Matrix movie in this scenario... Most humans live in the "ignorance is bliss" type of mentality. It's the best way to enjoy the fruits of earth without a care in the world. That's the green pill..

The red pill is for the people who see the world for what it is and the damage we are doing to the planet. Some of us are greener then others. Many of us aren't greener then the people who don't care, so they use that as an excuse to avoid meaningful debate "sure you use laptops or drive cars" etc.

Human history is littered with really stupid things done by societies. The smugness of us to think we are somehow better is laughable. In 100 years time future generations will scratch their heads at how small minded, shallow and self centred this generation had been.

My wife thinks I'm a bit mad because if we ever move house I want it to be on highish land. Sea levels are rising and I don't have any faith in humanity doing what's necessary before **** gets real...

Widdershins

Sam Kade wrote: »

What do you think they should do make everyone go back to horse drawn carriages ans sailing boats? Why are you using electricity with your laptop?

In fairness Ireland was progressive about single use plastic bags years ago, and that has made some difference. Let's not be defeatist about anything less than perfection.