118 replies to this topic

[WHO U KIDDIN]

If we were to continue our destructive consumer-based lifestyles then man could certainly be a plague on poor earth. Our planet's finite resources can never sustain humanity at the current pace of development and population growth.

But if we can consider alternative ways to live that don't destroy our habitat, efficient models of living that utilize the latest technologies perhaps we all can co-exist with our planet.

Here's a good example of sustainable living:

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN, 25 January 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[seeder]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 25 January 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

If we were to continue our destructive consumer-based lifestyles then man could certainly be a plague on poor earth. Our planet's finite resources can never sustain humanity at the current pace of development and population growth.

But if we can consider alternative ways to live that don't destroy our habitat, efficient models of living that utilize the latest technologies perhaps we all can co-exist with our planet.

Here's a good example of sustainable living:

and another. a million pounds of food...

Edited by seeder, 25 January 2013 - 04:50 AM.

[Esoteric Toad]

Humans are indeed a plague. I mean that in a non-misanthropic way. We certainly do lack focus but the solutions will never be agreed upon.

That fact likely will slow the plague or stamp it out. When we begin to run out of resources and ignore the basic human desire to see what lay over the next hill or what is across the sea we will go to war and cause mass death.... It is evolution's population control. Unless we spread out and explore space beyond earth humanity will like extinguish itself and give some other genus a cracked at getting it right :)

I'm not anti-people, just anti-stupid. JMHO.

Edited by Esoteric Toad, 25 January 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[Esoteric Toad]

seeder, on 25 January 2013 - 03:00 AM, said:

But we didnt drop the ball. The simple fact is we cannot even travel between the planets in our own solar system, that we already know cannot sustain life, let alone human life, no the ball wasnt dropped its just that the vast distance and speed needed to actively visit any planet, (and we havent found a suitable one even with todays technology), makes it impossible to do, its just a dream.

This is our planet. Best make do with it. Man will never colonize another world. Its just the way it is Im afraid.  

But typical of man to even think that we can just rinse this world of its resources, and move on.

I get your point but it's a bit too "we'll never be able to (insert amazing technological achievement in the last 120 years)".

I think we could do low earth space stations with a bit of centrifugal gravity.... Do we have the technology now? No. Impossible, I can't say I am no expert but I imagine (yeah I know, what I do not know is what makes it impossible) given a couple of decades and dedication we could overcome the materials, building and travel issues (materials from space, and not earth) . If we stuck close to earth we would not have to deal with the huge distances, as many health issues and could perhaps work out the other 'stuff' for warp drives and artificial gravity... and light sabers, and gotta have light sabers.. And fix the whole "no sound in space" or thing. How can you have proper space fighters without that cool tie fighter sound? .

Better to build up than out. Also it would allow us to look down at the earth and watch it slowly 'heal' itself. (Almost strangled myself on that last bit.... Not much of the 'mother nature, mother earth/hippie speak stuff but it is impractical and stupid to destroy your own and only home)

[spud the mackem]

It took about 65 millon years to recover from the dinosaur termination, as a dominant life force,then we appeared,and have been top of the tree for only a few thousand years. At the rate things are going we wont last another 1000 years,so how long is is going to take for the planet to recover after we have gone,because food for us is running out, so any guesses what the next dominant life form will be.

[Frank Merton]

spud the mackem, on 25 January 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

It took about 65 millon years to recover from the dinosaur termination, as a dominant life force,then we appeared,and have been top of the tree for only a few thousand years. At the rate things are going we wont last another 1000 years,so how long is is going to take for the planet to recover after we have gone,because food for us is running out, so any guesses what the next dominant life form will be.

The dinosaur termination happened about 65 million years ago, but life had recovered within less than a million years, albeit in different forms.  What happened from then on was continued evolution, although largely among mammals and birds rather than the non-bird dinosaurs.

[Frank Merton]

I think Attenborough goes entirely too far in some of his pronouncements, and his nature programs seem designed to appeal to some of our grosser instincts (for killing and so on, although he is not as bad as Discovery is).  His preaching is tiresome, as is also his superficiality and lack of scientific detail and "gee whiz" approach.  I guess this is why he is on the air on TV, a lowest-common-denominator medium.

[Darkwind]

Frank Merton, on 25 January 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

I think Attenborough goes entirely too far in some of his pronouncements, and his nature programs seem designed to appeal to some of our grosser instincts (for killing and so on, although he is not as bad as Discovery is).  His preaching is tiresome, as is also his superficiality and lack of scientific detail and "gee whiz" approach.  I guess this is why he is on the air on TV, a lowest-common-denominator medium.

I don't think we a watching the same shows.  I am  re-watching  one of the programs  he did on birds.   Things are not aways very nice in raw nature.  Lions, wolves, and other carnivores kill for a living it is not always a nice to see. Believe me, neither is a trip to a modern slaughter house. Actually his programs are really very tame.

[Frank Merton]

Darkwind, on 25 January 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

I don't think we a watching the same shows.  I am  re-watching  one of the programs  he did on birds.   Things are not aways very nice in raw nature.  Lions, wolves, and other carnivores kill for a living it is not always a nice to see. Believe me, neither is a trip to a modern slaughter house. Actually his programs are really very tame.

I'm willing to take your word for it.  I have downloaded a couple of his programs and found them lightweight and too violent, but have actually seen very little of him.  What I think fried me was the quote this thread is about, and which I strongly disagree with.  At best our being a "plague" can only be a metaphor, and a poorly chosen one.  It overemphasizes the negative and distorts the reality.

I must say I can't stand most nature programs because all they seem to be interested in is the process and excitement of hunting and then the sadistic gratification of the kill.  Now I'm not a vegetarian (although I don't eat meat, this is for health and not ethical reasons), and don't say others should do as I do or get pleasure where I get pleasure.  Certainly if people enjoy watching animals die, its better that than they do the killing.

Also, I would love it if nature programs were truly informative -- giving information about animal ranges, evolution, ecological relationships, life histories, behavior beyond just mating and hunting, related species and classification, and so on.  I know why they don't get into these things much, but that doesn't prevent me from wishing they would.  What we get follows such a predictable pattern -- some cute pictures of little ones, maybe a little on mating behavior, and then some hunts and kills and finally a little environment homily.

[minera]

is he volunteering to commit suicide to lessen the population? Maybe we should start with all the obscenely rich then the criminals. If they are eradicated it would help the status quo and give regular citizens an incentive to clean up the rest of the mess. Like getting rid of poluting big companies and finding a more ecofriendly and cheaper form of energy that is non poluting.

[TheLastLazyGun]

minera, on 26 January 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

is he volunteering to commit suicide to lessen the population?

That's the problem with the idiots who come with offensve phrases such as "humans are a plague" and "their numbers need to be controlled".  They aren't prepared to cull themselves but tell other people to do it.  It's like Bono telling me to give money to starving children in Africa, yet he is a millionaire and gives the poor of Africa sod all.

Quote

Maybe we should start with all the obscenely rich

Yeah, that's the way.  Let's kill off all aspirationism and entrepreneurialiship and let's all live poor like those people in Africa.  Get rid of all the evil rich and let's like like starving Ethiopians.  Being poor is the way forward.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 29 January 2013 - 03:42 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

TheLastLazyGun, on 29 January 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

That's the problem with the idiots who come with offensve phrases such as "humans are a plague" and "their numbers need to be controlled".  They aren't prepared to cull themselves but tell other people to do it.  It's like Bono telling me to give money to starving children in Africa, yet he is a millionaire and gives the poor of Africa sod all.



Yeah, that's the way.  Let's kill off all aspirationism and entrepreneurialiship and let's all live poor like those people in Africa.  Get rid of all the evil rich and let's like like starving Ethiopians.  Being poor is the way forward.

neither Attenborough or anyone else here has advocated "killing of the masses", you are using a straw man to project a false position in those who have thought about this. I ask you the simple question - what would you give up to make the current population sustainable ??

Br Cornelius

[Zaphod222]

The headline sounds sensationalistic, but if you actually read what he said, it turns out he is simply stating a fact.
You can not have unlimited population growth in a limited space.

[jesspy]

If it helps I have chosen not to have kids. However I will still eat their share of the chocolate.

[Frank Merton]

Zaphod222, on 02 February 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

The headline sounds sensationalistic, but if you actually read what he said, it turns out he is simply stating a fact.
You can not have unlimited population growth in a limited space.

So why does he make such an outrageous statement?  I think prominent people have a special responsibility to be very careful what they say.

There are a number of problems generated by population growth -- the using up of land is one that can be controlled by getting most people to live as Asians live in apartment complexes (quite luxurious).  The problem of food has been a false problem for a long time, as technology has steadily improved diets in spite of the increasing population.  Get people to stop eating meat as a main course and only as a condiment and the problem is cut in half (along with about a third of the global warming problem).

My point is not that population can grow indefinitely, but that it isn't a problem now and doesn't appear to be becoming one (with improving living standards family sizes naturally drop, and we've seen this literally everywhere).  Modern projects say the earth's population should level off in about 50 years.