You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 04:03:05 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?  (Read 12222 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RubySlippersTopic starter

I have been working on a research paper in my philosophy class and am placing a case in it that its impractical to fight Global Warming first setting down pragmatic points of reference. Then actually debate the point and make a case for a pragmatic approach of our species to this threat. I do argue and agree with the general evidence its happening as the basis of the entire document. Here is brief are my basic opening points on the positional stance.

1. There is no political will by the two largest contributors to the problem China and the United States: In that there is no way either nation will act on this until its too late to make a difference and so its a de facto mute point. I make the case that the economic concerns will overcome any possible humanitarian approach to the debate to both governments.

2. There is no scientific consensus as to the eventual outcomes of global warming in that its happening but the effects are not full known, which makes the debate to fight it less urgent to the average citizen, mainly in the two nations mentioned above.

3. Humans have in the known history of our species when faced with a change in environment up to now have adapted. We migrated to other areas or form different systems of community management (governance) that makes its very likely our race will survive. In fact the pragmatic mandate demands this that we accept that this change is natural and expected, its the simpler solution and in fact favoring the above two points the natural end result that must happen.


Simply put in the paper I argue rather than fight global warming its better to develop the means to best adapt to it and plan to relocate people to more secure areas. I do note that there is a concern for the Third World nations least able to adapt but in the long run the pragmatic mandate demands the First World nations tend to their own. For example instead of Solar Energy we should instead master Hydroponic Farming and Crop Engineering to be able to produce food in a hotter Earth. After all the United States on our own could meet the needs of our citizens we have the military and natural resources to do that even if we adopt a police state to do that. What in the end matters is the species not a form of government or even a segment of our race that is in a less affluent status.

In the end survival of the fittest favors not just the strong in body or mind but to those who fate granted advantages of a societal nature and geography, where all factors fall into place well they will endure. That favors the advanced nations placed in locations with ample natural resources and where the technical skills allow technology to be used more fully to adapt.

Any thoughts on this subject?

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2007, 02:49:39 AM »
I do not believe we can do much about global warming.  A good-sized component of global warming is natural anyway.  The Earth has gotten quite a bit warmer than it is today (the Arctic Ocean was once almost as warm as the Mediterranean is today).
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006061.shtml

and much of the Northern Hemisphere was once glaciated, all without any intervention from humans.  The evidence is incontestable that Earth's climate has taken substantial excursions outside what we now consider "normal," and on numerous occasions, before the Industrial Age.

Offline Simon

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2007, 04:07:31 AM »
Short answer to the question... yes.

Offline Ariabella

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2007, 06:58:17 AM »
I don't know whether global warming can be stopped, altered or changed in any manner, but if the measures help make our world beautiful again and save flora and fauna, yes. Nothing is more beautiful than a forest or an untouched mountain, and too see it raised and built up for business, or yes, residential, makes me sick. Older homes which are gorgeous and better built set around going to waste because everyone wants to live beyond their means in mansions. And if we keep developing farmland, guess what? There's not going to be food for anyone once the farmers are gone!

Offline RubySlippersTopic starter

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2007, 08:25:58 AM »
I read in an article in the paper by a local economist that crunched the numbers with an actuary that to meet the Kyoto Treaty the US could do that by shutting down a few dozen coal fired powerplants and stop using all gasoline- totally. From running the lawnmower to driving ambulances and police cars. They weren't kidding that is the risk our nation wil take to meet those benchmarks. Conservation measures which I do approve of to conserve and use power better might save the power plants, but you can't do such a drastic step in the US.

People who are Green don't like to admit it but their desired plans will kill the American economy. Your talking real jobs and normal people, this is one case where Congress refusing to sign such a treaty was in our nations best interest. And faring won't die out corporate farms are the norm now in any case and our technology can likely make any drawbacks reduced in our nation- hydroponic farming, drip irrigation, genetic engineering of crops are all sound. We just need to feed ourselves in any case not the world if it came down to that.

Offline Simon

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2007, 08:35:30 AM »
But at the same time it will be cheaper in the long run then to do nothing. Regardless if the majority of the world’s climate scientist is right or not USA will be hit hard in the coming changes of climate as you will be hurt worse by hurricanes, new weather patterns that changes what crops Midwest can hold, rising of the sea level and so on. So the question is if you want to try to do something about it, EU is following the agreement of Kyoto and will not go bankrupt because of it, I say the opposite. New environment safe technology will bring much money into the region and this is something the whole world will need… sooner or later.

USA’s biggest problem is that your average car drinks too much gas. If GM or Ford had even cared to create cars that run more efficient (as Toyota does for instance) they would have stood a better chance then what they do today.

As I see it you have two options, either your economy dies because you have an unhealthy foundation of your economy or the future weather will.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2007, 08:44:10 AM »
Ecology in general = important and worth making sacrifices for, within reason.

It's sad that the debate about global warming became so entwined with politics. Science and politics are not good bedmates.

Offline Swedish Steel

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2007, 08:47:04 AM »
The green's suggestion might kill the american economy, but the american economy will kill the world, so I'd say fair's fair.

Offline RubySlippersTopic starter

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2007, 09:11:29 AM »
Then humans will do what we have done for millenia, migrate. I looked at the numbers and do see sea levels rising but not overnight. If it takes a century that is plenty of time for us to relocate people to more secure areas inland. And we will always be able to feed our people and take care of our people, and likely nations we deem necessary and useful. The poor in the Third World are in the bad spot with Global Warming, why is that as an American my problem to help them? First rule of the Pragmatic Mandate is you care for yourself then those useful to you and then ignore the rest. Its the same with governments. Selfish as it is that is how the world generally works and how it must be accepted.

And really now do any of you think the US government, China, India or the developing nations are going to surrender our economic might and lifestyles for the rest of you? Or sacrifice to make life less nice for us to make an animal happy? No we are not. And like I pointed out without the Chinese and US on board any plans you have are pipe dreams.

And I live in Florida and know hurricanes. I live modestly and frankly have little a storm could take away. And I already decided if that I was wiped out by a big storm I'd move out of the state. That's what humans do we find one place hard to live in for the benefit we just move. Its an option as an American living in a large country I have. If others are less mobile in other nations then its not my problem.

And ,Swedish Steel, if anything is killing the world its overpopulation in areas that can't sustain it such as Africa and India, racial and tribal and religious conflicts and many other issues that are not the fault of Global Warming. As I see it in the long run it might be better the First World and our friends will survive and the useless poor will be culled of the excess population as nature decides. Maybe Global Warming is natures way of taking out 70% of the poor in the long run then it would be arrogant to try and stop her plans. In a few thousand years things will balance out again I'm sure. Humans may have flaws to some of you but we do survive, we survived the last ice age, several world wars, plagues and we will survive this. In the end it will come down to which humans and human cultures are best able to adapt, but the species will survive. In some form.

Offline Simon

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2007, 09:20:52 AM »
But what you are suggesting can't be done really. You can't move the amount of people needed to do so. Your country will be just as bad hit by this as the rest of the world. What are you proposing? Evacuate California, Most of the East Coast, Texas and mid states, the people in south east... to where?

Wouldn't it be easier to try to find a solution to the problem before it came to that?

As for China... well they are already suffering heavily for their polluting so I expect them to come around rather soon. Either that or their nation will collapse.

Offline RubySlippersTopic starter

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2007, 11:42:06 AM »
Ok I'm going to use statistics from an Inconveniant Truth they expect depending in the scientist a worst case sea level rise in a few hundred years of eighty feet. Lets assume that is generally the case all we have to do is move people from the coat to elevations 80 feet higher than now over a few hundred years. Our species has done that before and in such a short amount of thime the evacuation of people from the Fertile Cresent to Europe and Northern Africa and to the East when the ecology collapsed in ancient times. The US is more than large enough to move the populations to states where the elevation is higher. Even in California you move the coastal population inland you can get people in safe elevations. And its going to happen even the best science I can find says global warming will continue for a decades if not a century even if we did stop all Co2 emissions today.

And let be honest not one Green Technology that is truly sustainable and non-polluting technology is anywhere near able to meet the US and Chinese energy needs even with conservation, in a century it may be with work, not now. I'm just pragmatic how do you plan to meet the vast energy needs we have with that technology if we did switch over. And there is not one subsitute for gasoline that is even in range to replace it in the next five decades. But I saw Demolition Man and maybe they will get electric supercars, they do we can maybe look at alternatives.

Offline Ariabella

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2007, 05:33:01 PM »
Since when are the *poor* useless? And just who do you think does all of the back-breaking work that it takes to clothe the world? The poor are far from useless. They are the backbone of this world. The first thing we could do to eradicate poverty is put prices at affordable rates, have a minimum $10 an hour wage and let people work full time that want to. Let's also bring jobs back to America and actually have companies that hire Americans instead of leaving them unemployed and homeless. The CEO's want to line their pockets on the back and blood of the underpaid worker while they play golf. It's time for that to stop. The bigger money needs to go to those who actually earn it. No CEO would survive dealing with the public for five minutes.

And I do want it to be known that I found the term useless poor quite offensive.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2007, 05:48:40 PM »
Quote
The poor in the Third World are in the bad spot with Global Warming, why is that as an American my problem to help them? First rule of the Pragmatic Mandate is you care for yourself then those useful to you and then ignore the rest. Its the same with governments. Selfish as it is that is how the world generally works and how it must be accepted.
Quote
As I see it in the long run it might be better the First World and our friends will survive and the useless poor will be culled of the excess population as nature decides.
Uh, yeah, I just noticed it.
Ruby, I'm afraid what you are saying is insane. I have no idea what 'Pragmatic Mandate' is, but it's certainly not an okay approach to anything.

Is this some extreme new type of libertarianism perhaps? Believe me, I'm a firm supporter of personal freedom and responsibility, but what you are proposing is inhuman and runs completely counter to responsibility. If there are poor in the 3rd world that can be helped, they *have* to be helped even if it costs us a tremendous lot.
Not to mention that the world isn't directly divided into '1st' '2nd' and '3rd' with no contact between them. People have friends in economic spheres other than their own. Valuable people live outside American/European economic sphere.
Hey, 20 years ago my country would probably qualify as '3rd world'. There are people across the eastern border who are '3rd world' right now, and they are the same people as you.
Cindy1 is right too, USA and EU rich are not rich because they're somehow better and certainly not more deserving.

I mean no offense to you, but this honestly sounds like a political theory made by someone with mental deficiencies. Regardless of anyones stance on global warming.

Offline Lifeguard

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2007, 07:28:06 PM »
Global warming is real but it's not caused by humans and it cannot be prevented by humans.

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_other.htm

most of the changes are from climate change which is due to changes in the earth's tilt in space.

http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/climchng.html

This is a history of Earth's climate change. Notice that it has a regularity to it's random fluctuation.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

This page shows the temperature history of the earth. You can see from the picture that the temperature rises then falls. Now when the temperature started rising was when the industrial revolution started. I have heard some arguments that because of the rise of temperature when the industrial revolution began humans are to blame for global warming. This is not true.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

This is an article from Time Magazine from 30 years ago. The article explains that humans are to blame for global cooling.

what happened with global cooling? Did we suddenly get an ice age? No. The so called experts were wrong then.

Don't buy into the crap that global warming is a problem. It's just a tool used for political purposes
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 07:36:26 PM by Lifeguard »

Offline RubySlippersTopic starter

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2007, 12:27:35 AM »
Uh, yeah, I just noticed it.
Ruby, I'm afraid what you are saying is insane. I have no idea what 'Pragmatic Mandate' is, but it's certainly not an okay approach to anything.

Is this some extreme new type of libertarianism perhaps? Believe me, I'm a firm supporter of personal freedom and responsibility, but what you are proposing is inhuman and runs completely counter to responsibility. If there are poor in the 3rd world that can be helped, they *have* to be helped even if it costs us a tremendous lot.
Not to mention that the world isn't directly divided into '1st' '2nd' and '3rd' with no contact between them. People have friends in economic spheres other than their own. Valuable people live outside American/European economic sphere.
Hey, 20 years ago my country would probably qualify as '3rd world'. There are people across the eastern border who are '3rd world' right now, and they are the same people as you.
Cindy1 is right too, USA and EU rich are not rich because they're somehow better and certainly not more deserving.

I mean no offense to you, but this honestly sounds like a political theory made by someone with mental deficiencies. Regardless of anyones stance on global warming.

I just care what is best for the comfort and advantage of the American people, if any other nation or people is useful to us here then we should exploit that. Lets say the shit hit the fan and the EU stopped being friendly with the US over this issue then we have every right to tell you all to go to hell. We did with the Kyoto Treaty for a good reason to protect OUR economic strength and OUR comfort level. That is my nations only responsibility, to see to itself and its citizens. I say let those of other nations and their own people tend to their people and we should try to stay out of matters where good assets may be wasted. If we can get things in return they are useful and should benefit from the US.

And have nothing against the working poor Cindy1, they work and so are useful.


Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2007, 02:43:41 AM »
There is precious little the U.S. can do to reduce global warming.  Most of the temperature increase is due to increased solar output and cyclical flux anyway.  A century from now, everyone will be panicked over the coming Ice Age, as most Ice Ages have been preceded by a sharp run-up in temperatures.

Offline Swedish Steel

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2007, 03:36:44 AM »
I just care what is best for the comfort and advantage of the American people, if any other nation or people is useful to us here then we should exploit that. Lets say the shit hit the fan and the EU stopped being friendly with the US over this issue then we have every right to tell you all to go to hell. We did with the Kyoto Treaty for a good reason to protect OUR economic strength and OUR comfort level. That is my nations only responsibility, to see to itself and its citizens. I say let those of other nations and their own people tend to their people and we should try to stay out of matters where good assets may be wasted. If we can get things in return they are useful and should benefit from the US.

And have nothing against the working poor Cindy1, they work and so are useful.



That's a lovely philosophy, you can justify almost everything with it. What's next, putting the sick and the crippled in camps? They are after all a drain on the economy...

And hey, on a happier note, we now can sail directly from Europe to Asia! Since August this year the Northwest Passage is open! Woho!

Offline Zakharra

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2007, 09:13:02 AM »
And hey, on a happier note, we now can sail directly from Europe to Asia! Since August this year the Northwest Passage is open! Woho!

 Alright! That passage has been blocked since the last Ice Age started. It's about time it opened up again.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2007, 05:38:14 PM »
In my humble opinion there is no excuse NOT to consider the ecological footprint of every action I take.  RubySlippers, excuse me for voicing this out loud and I don't mean it to be uncivil, but when I read your posts I see the words of someone who looks at things through a very narrow lens and isn't very mature.  Those people that you don't care about are every bit as human as you are, what sets you above them? 

Did you watch the news footage about New Orleans?  If that many people can't migrate, how is it that you think entire countries will? 

Have you looked at your ethnic heritage?  There's no such thing as a "pure" American at this point, unless maybe you count the very few "pure-blood" Native Americans.  I don't know about you, but I'm not selfish enough to extinguish my relatives just because they're three generations back, so your comments regarding saving the US and ignoring everyone else seem cruel to me.

Your myriad comments referring to everything as an asset makes my stomach turn.  Perhaps we should develop a scale of "usefulness" for everyone to complete so that when the time comes we know who to 'kick off the island'... after all, someone may be wise but if they're not useful, why waste resources feeding them?  I find it chilling that the end result of this mode of thinking isn't obvious. 

Regarding the original question, my answer is yes, but not because I believe that we have directly caused global warming, but because we should have been thinking outside of our own immediate comfort from day one!  I don't know who or what caused global warming, I don't know if it's something we can affect directly, but I do know that there is no excuse for not considering the environment effects of EVERY action we take.

This entire post is in my humble opinion... just want to clarify that.  IMHO, the fact that CEO's make such insane amounts of money is disgusting.  The fact that the American people let it happen is even moreso.  Employees are no longer considered human beings, they are simply assets to be manipulated for higher profit.  Am I the only one who thinks that's insanity?!  I mean, outsourcing is at its very core destructive to the community a business is a part of, but if no one considers themselves members of communities anymore what's the incentive for a company to give a crap who they underpay and underinsure?

I feel like I need to liberally pepper this post with IMHO's :)  I hear people rant about the political system in the US, but in fact it is what the citizens of this country allow it to be.  As long as people remain apathetic and individualistic, it will remain as it is because it serves the acquisition of money with no consideration for the community model.

I would think that China would serve as a warning to us of what happens when you don't consider environmental impact.  Go spend a day in one of their big cities... better take a mask.

RubySlippers, your references to thinking only of your needs and your country make me sad.  Not that you should care if I'm sad... but perhaps you could sit down and honestly consider why those you've stated as not deserving of consideration fall into that category.  Walk in someone else's shoes and you find a whole new perspective on the world.

To place an economy above consideration for a human being is nothing short of criminal in my humble opinion.  Economies are systems that require human beings, they don't function in a vacuum.

Have you considered the lifecycle analysis of factory farming?  Do you honestly think that sterilizing soil and then loading it with chemicals that artificially feed crops is a good practice?  I mean, seriously... think about the long term price, not just the fact that you can get a can of vegetables so cheaply because of it. 

And genetic engineering?!  Tell me, have you done any research into the effect of genetically engineered corn on the Monarch butterfly population?  If it affects them so subtly, how can anyone possibly believe that there aren't possible consequences of doing things that don't occur in nature?  A jellyfish and a tomato with NEVER interbreed in nature.  A tomato that won't freeze is NOT a legitimate reason to do so unnaturally!  (insert IMHO disclaimer here)

Please forgive the long post... I honestly tried not to be offensive to anyone, instead using language that expresses my beliefs and opinions as just that.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2007, 06:24:21 PM »
 Wow.  :o that's alot to reply to...

 
Quote
there is no excuse NOT to consider the ecological footprint of every action I take.  RubySlippers, excuse me for voicing this out loud and I don't mean it to be uncivil, but when I read your posts I see the words of someone who looks at things through a very narrow lens and isn't very mature.  Those people that you don't care about are every bit as human as you are, what sets you above them?

 There is no possible way to take the ecological impact into account on everything people do. The numbers of actions would overwhelm anyone. RubySlippers's post is rather hard and rigid, but she is entilted to her opinion.

 
Quote
Did you watch the news footage about New Orleans?  If that many people can't migrate, how is it that you think entire countries will?

 They did migrate. Many stayed behind, some because they didn't want to leave, others because they could not leave and the local government dropped the ball big time.

 
Quote
Have you looked at your ethnic heritage?  There's no such thing as a "pure" American at this point, unless maybe you count the very few "pure-blood" Native Americans.  I don't know about you, but I'm not selfish enough to extinguish my relatives just because they're three generations back, so your comments regarding saving the US and ignoring everyone else seem cruel to me.

Your myriad comments referring to everything as an asset makes my stomach turn.  Perhaps we should develop a scale of "usefulness" for everyone to complete so that when the time comes we know who to 'kick off the island'... after all, someone may be wise but if they're not useful, why waste resources feeding them?  I find it chilling that the end result of this mode of thinking isn't obvious.

 You can bet that politicians look at people like that. Assets to be used and directed for their own gain. You rail against corporations, but do not forget the legal power politicians have to do and shape things.

 
Quote
Regarding the original question, my answer is yes, but not because I believe that we have directly caused global warming, but because we should have been thinking outside of our own immediate comfort from day one!  I don't know who or what caused global warming, I don't know if it's something we can affect directly, but I do know that there is no excuse for not considering the environment effects of EVERY action we take.


 Good theory, but an impossibility to do. Especially if it involves people losing the comforts they have gotten used to. The only way you would come close to having the enviromental effect taken into account and acted on, would be in a totalitarian style society. People would have to be forced to do what is 'good' for the enviroment.

 
Quote
This entire post is in my humble opinion... just want to clarify that.  IMHO, the fact that CEO's make such insane amounts of money is disgusting.  The fact that the American people let it happen is even moreso.  Employees are no longer considered human beings, they are simply assets to be manipulated for higher profit.  Am I the only one who thinks that's insanity?!  I mean, outsourcing is at its very core destructive to the community a business is a part of, but if no one considers themselves members of communities anymore what's the incentive for a company to give a crap who they underpay and underinsure?

 The pay of CEOs is the business of the company that they run. No one should be sticking their nose into it.  Yes, employees are concidered as things, but that is the nature of the company. It is in business to do one thing and one thing only. Make money. A company that doesn't make money will die and fade away. They need money to survive and grown. That is why there is outsourcing. Because the costs of doing business is cheaper in other countries. That is a global economy.
 
 The companies also have the option (which is less of an option nowadays and more of a requirement in some states) of offering health insurance. That is well and good, but why shouldn't the employee be the one to decide what he or she wants for insurance? Or even if they want any? Some people don't want any.

 
Quote
I hear people rant about the political system in the US, but in fact it is what the citizens of this country allow it to be.  As long as people remain apathetic and individualistic, it will remain as it is because it serves the acquisition of money with no consideration for the community model.


 Yes. the people do get the government that they want. That is a result of the democratic system that we have. Every few years there's the oppertunaty to remove/replace the politicians that seriously annoy the voters.

 
Quote
As long as people remain apathetic and individualistic,

 What's wrong with being individualistic? It's what makes us human. If we were not individualistic, we'd be like ants or bees. Each person in their place.

 
Quote
I would think that China would serve as a warning to us of what happens when you don't consider environmental impact.  Go spend a day in one of their big cities... better take a mask.

 We've already gotten past that point. Thank you very much. Our power plants pollute alot less than the Chinese and we are working on ways of making cleaner power.  The China comparison isn't a valid one.

 
Quote
To place an economy above consideration for a human being is nothing short of criminal in my humble opinion.  Economies are systems that require human beings, they don't function in a vacuum.

Have you considered the lifecycle analysis of factory farming?  Do you honestly think that sterilizing soil and then loading it with chemicals that artificially feed crops is a good practice?  I mean, seriously... think about the long term price, not just the fact that you can get a can of vegetables so cheaply because of it.

And genetic engineering?!  Tell me, have you done any research into the effect of genetically engineered corn on the Monarch butterfly population?  If it affects them so subtly, how can anyone possibly believe that there aren't possible consequences of doing things that don't occur in nature?  A jellyfish and a tomato with NEVER interbreed in nature.  A tomato that won't freeze is NOT a legitimate reason to do so unnaturally!  (insert IMHO disclaimer here)

 Economies are also what help countries grow. So they will always be concidered over the life of a person. No one person is more important that the economic well being of a nation. Large groups of people, then you are talking about something different, and that can have some effect.

 Factory farming is here to stay. Better methods of growing crops to eat and burn in your car are constantly being developed, since the demand will never go down for them. The only way to stop it is to take the land away from the corps and give it to small farmers. Which won't happen in the US. It is happening in Zimbabewa(sp) and that country has gone to hell. It used to be a food exporter, now they face starvation and famine.

 ..and one of my favorites. Genetic engineering. That is what willl save us. Genetically engineered foods that can grow with less water, in differing climates, have added nutriants are coming and cannot be ignored. There are people and groups that have tried to stop the sale of a rice that has been genetically improved, for cultivation in the equateral countries. Because of suspected problems. Do you think the people who that crop will feed really care where it comes from? No. They won't give a damn, all they'll want is to feed their familes.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2007, 07:28:12 PM »
There is no possible way to take the ecological impact into account on everything people do. The numbers of actions would overwhelm anyone. RubySlippers's post is rather hard and rigid, but she is entilted to her opinion.

Agreed, is that a reason to just throw the baby out with the bathwater?  I don't think so.  At no point did I say she's not entitled to her opinion.

Quote from: Zakharra
They did migrate. Many stayed behind, some because they didn't want to leave, others because they could not leave and the local government dropped the ball big time.

My point is that it pointed out how badly people accomplish migration in emergency conditions.

Quote from: Zakharra
You can bet that politicians look at people like that. Assets to be used and directed for their own gain. You rail against corporations, but do not forget the legal power politicians have to do and shape things.

So what?  I don't rail against ALL corporations, just the ones who put profit before their contribution (or detriment) to the community they are a part of, be it a small town, the US, or the world.
 
Quote from: Zakharra
Good theory, but an impossibility to do. Especially if it involves people losing the comforts they have gotten used to. The only way you would come close to having the enviromental effect taken into account and acted on, would be in a totalitarian style society. People would have to be forced to do what is 'good' for the enviroment.

It's certainly easier to just throw up one's hands and say that it'll never be perfect so why bother, a school of thought my brother subscribes to as well.  I like to think that human beings are intelligent enough to manage change with having it forced on them.
 
Quote from: Zakharra
The pay of CEOs is the business of the company that they run. No one should be sticking their nose into it.  Yes, employees are concidered as things, but that is the nature of the company. It is in business to do one thing and one thing only. Make money. A company that doesn't make money will die and fade away. They need money to survive and grown. That is why there is outsourcing. Because the costs of doing business is cheaper in other countries. That is a global economy.

Careful about putting words in my mouth, I'm not proposing anything more than being responsible for what I support.  I consider every dollar I spend to be a vote for the ethics of the company it supports, that's my way of influencing things.  Imagine if everyone did so?  Not that everyone has to share my values, but I wonder if the system would function quite differently if there were less apathy and absolute individualism.
 
The short term cost of operation using outsourcing may be cheaper, but when you factor in the effect it has on the community that business is a part of, at least to the level of it being part of the US, that theory no longer works.

Quote from: Zakharra
The companies also have the option (which is less of an option nowadays and more of a requirement in some states) of offering health insurance. That is well and good, but why shouldn't the employee be the one to decide what he or she wants for insurance? Or even if they want any? Some people don't want any.

I was referring to disability insurance... I don't think I've met anyone who didn't want that.  Health insurance is a separate issue for another thread (which I think already exists).

Quote from: Zakharra
Yes. the people do get the government that they want. That is a result of the democratic system that we have. Every few years there's the oppertunaty to remove/replace the politicians that seriously annoy the voters.

The system we have is not a true democracy, it's more of a republic system because of the sheer number of constituents.  I have to wonder what would happen if EVERYONE participated... but PLEASE don't assume that I'm proposing that we force people to vote.  What I'm proposing is that the importance of a person's participation in the 'democratic' process we employ is EQUALLY as important as their pursuit of wealth... as a matter of fact it impacts it directly.

Quote from: Zakharra
What's wrong with being individualistic? It's what makes us human. If we were not individualistic, we'd be like ants or bees. Each person in their place.

At what point did I propose that no degree of individualism is good?  Please don't put words in my mouth.  This is NOT an all or nothing situation... very few things are.  There's is a LOT of room between an ant and a person who doesn't seem to think much beyond how much money they can cram in their wallet and how far ahead they can get, personally.

Quote from: Zakharra
We've already gotten past that point. Thank you very much. Our power plants pollute alot less than the Chinese and we are working on ways of making cleaner power.  The China comparison isn't a valid one.

We are?  Sorry, I don't see much evidence.  And PLEASE don't say nuclear power... see my previous post regarding lifecycle analysis. 
 
Quote from: Zakharra
Economies are also what help countries grow. So they will always be concidered over the life of a person. No one person is more important that the economic well being of a nation. Large groups of people, then you are talking about something different, and that can have some effect.

What are large groups of people, other than a grouping of individual people?  I don't recall implying that one individual person's needs should bring an economy to a halt. 

Quote from: Zakharra
Factory farming is here to stay. Better methods of growing crops to eat and burn in your car are constantly being developed, since the demand will never go down for them. The only way to stop it is to take the land away from the corps and give it to small farmers. Which won't happen in the US. It is happening in Zimbabewa(sp) and that country has gone to hell. It used to be a food exporter, now they face starvation and famine.

The word 'better' is a sticky one... better for whom?  For how long?  Because if you add 'beyond immediate gratification' to the end of 'better' it becomes a different ballgame.  You know, your insistence on seeing things as black or white is interesting.  Taking the land away is NOT the only way to stop it... surely you don't really believe that?  And you honestly posit that giving land to small farmers is the reason Zimbabwe is struggling?  An interesting theory... I suspect climate change may have some influence, among other things.

Quote from: Zakharra
..and one of my favorites. Genetic engineering. That is what willl save us. Genetically engineered foods that can grow with less water, in differing climates, have added nutriants are coming and cannot be ignored. There are people and groups that have tried to stop the sale of a rice that has been genetically improved, for cultivation in the equateral countries. Because of suspected problems. Do you think the people who that crop will feed really care where it comes from? No. They won't give a damn, all they'll want is to feed their familes.

In a world of "black or white" thinking (not racially, of course) one could conclude that genetic engineering is the end all, be all solution to our every problem.  There are myriad crops that can survive in myriad climates... why not match the crop to the climate instead of trying to force every crop to every climate by morphing it? 

Regarding rice, I think that that is pretty weak logic for doing something so broadly that could have vast consequences.  As I said before... Monarch butterflies are a perfect example.  If GM foods are the same, why are the butterflies affected?  Maybe you don't care about butterflies, but either way there's no denying that GM crops could easily have side effects.  And regardless, I should have the choice of not purchasing them if I don't want to.  They should be clearly labeled. 

Also, what about GM seeds that have to be "activated"?  That is a frightening prospect no matter how you cut it, unless you're the person profiting from the sale of the activating medium.

Offline Ariabella

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2007, 08:00:22 PM »
A few random thoughts, in no particular order of Moondazed comments.

1. I can make a conscious effort not to throw litter on the ground, to recycle, to want to use paper bags instead of plastic and to make the decision to use reusable bags at the store. There was a study done on the elimination of one plastic grocery bag in NYC and the difference it would make, but I can't remember the numbers off hand.

2. I also would like to be able to choose NOT to put chemicals, hormones, etc in my body via the food that I eat.  You always hear "you shouldn't eat this, you shouldn't eat that, it will do this to you," but you know, for example in the 1800's, unless you were shot or scalped, or caught a contagious disease, you weren't killed by the food you eat and/or cancer. Ever stop to wonder why now we have this bumper crop of food allergies?

3. The political climate needs to be changed to where the popular vote is what votes in the politicians, and not the electoral. I'm not certain what makes up that part of the vote, but it's what counts and I have never felt that the people are really represented in it.

4. My point on the CEO's and companies was that the CEO's don't need these multi-million dollar contracts while the people who work for them can't even afford to put food on the table. The only thing a CEO in any company I have worked for has done is make idiotic decisions which cost business. I have been through two that went in Chapter 11...one survived, one didn't. And the one that did survive has not made any changes to their business policies nor their product. Wake up corporate America, if you piss off your customers, you're going down in flames. And currently I see another doing the same with bad decisions. The bottom line is, the CEO's want their company to make money, granted, but they want their fat salaries and their fat bonuses at the cost of the employee and the customer.

5. Which brings me to New Orleans. Most couldn't afford to migrate for this very reason. They were trapped in a too-low minimum wage job which barely paid the bills and put food on the table. I don't know of anyone who makes less than $100,000 a year that can afford to save for the future, retirement or emergencies. Especially if you're single.

6. The politicians are not for the people of this country, only the special interest groups, lobbyists and their good old boy CEO friends.  If a poor person could run and be elected, guess what? Things might change. Most have never known poverty, trouble making ends meet, homelessness.

7. This country also needs to start taking care of it's own. Instead of limiting help to people who make, for example, $5000 or less annually, make it $25000. These are the people paying taxes and can't get any help for it. They also need to stop helping people who refuse to work, instead, sitting at home popping out baby after baby. And I know this is done, I have a friend who is a social worker.

8. If we keep wasting resources, filling landfills, developing the land to within an inch of it's life, there won't be a place for corporate farms either. And I would really prefer to keep our flora and fauna intact instead of losing a species so much. They look to us for our protection and we destroy them.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2007, 11:12:31 PM by Cindy1 »

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2007, 08:33:20 PM »
I'm sure it's no surprise that I completely agree with Cindy1 :)

Offline Zakharra

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2007, 12:09:41 AM »
 
Quote
So what?  I don't rail against ALL corporations, just the ones who put profit before their contribution (or detriment) to the community they are a part of, be it a small town, the US, or the world.

 That is 99.99519% of all corporations. They have to put the interests of the investors ahead of everything else, or they fail.

 
Quote
The short term cost of operation using outsourcing may be cheaper, but when you factor in the effect it has on the community that business is a part of, at least to the level of it being part of the US, that theory no longer works.

 See above. If a community wants to keep a businessin it. Then it had better make it profitable for the business to stay. There are reasons that they move elswhere.

 
Quote
At what point did I propose that no degree of individualism is good?  Please don't put words in my mouth.  This is NOT an all or nothing situation... very few things are.  There's is a LOT of room between an ant and a person who doesn't seem to think much beyond how much money they can cram in their wallet and how far ahead they can get, personally.

 You said this; I hear people rant about the political system in the US, but in fact it is what the citizens of this country allow it to be.  As long as people remain apathetic and individualistic, it will remain as it is because it serves the acquisition of money with no consideration for the community model.  Which I took, maybe wrongly, to mean what I said in my post.

 
Quote
We are?  Sorry, I don't see much evidence.  And PLEASE don't say nuclear power... see my previous post regarding lifecycle analysis.

 THe US is a lot cleaner than China in air and water quality. We clean up our messes much faster and better than they do. Nuclear power is a good option. The spent fuel rods are easily storable and there are methods coming out that will render them relatively harmless for storage and/or disposal.
 Side note; There are permits to build nuclear powerplants in the US, being filed. We need power and it has to come from somewhere.
 
Quote
You know, your insistence on seeing things as black or white is interesting.  Taking the land away is NOT the only way to stop it... surely you don't really believe that?  And you honestly posit that giving land to small farmers is the reason Zimbabwe is struggling?  An interesting theory... I suspect climate change may have some influence, among other things.

 The leader of the country had a good situation food wise until his government took the land away from the farmers who could work it. Global warming has nothing to do with that. The change was within a few years.  5 or less.  The climate may change fast, but not that fast. There is a direct relationship between the landgrab and food production falling off.

 
Quote
In a world of "black or white" thinking (not racially, of course) one could conclude that genetic engineering is the end all, be all solution to our every problem.  There are myriad crops that can survive in myriad climates... why not match the crop to the climate instead of trying to force every crop to every climate by morphing it?

Regarding rice, I think that that is pretty weak logic for doing something so broadly that could have vast consequences.  As I said before... Monarch butterflies are a perfect example.  If GM foods are the same, why are the butterflies affected?  Maybe you don't care about butterflies, but either way there's no denying that GM crops could easily have side effects.  And regardless, I should have the choice of not purchasing them if I don't want to.  They should be clearly labeled.

Also, what about GM seeds that have to be "activated"?  That is a frightening prospect no matter how you cut it, unless you're the person profiting from the sale of the activating medium.

  They are making foods to suit the climate, as well as improving them(by human standards and needs). The Monarch butterflies? It's a problem that needs to be worked out. With the changing climate, the natural food  plants simple will not produce enough to feed a growing population. The growing amount of GM foods means that they will be mixed with other foods. Unless you buy from local farmers that you know don't use those seeds.

 I'm not saying that there will not be side effects. There certainly will be. As new ones pop up, they will be taken into account in the next model of  GM food.

 Activating seed? I have no problem with that. The company that made them has shelled out millions, hundreds of millions of dollars most likely. Why should they not see a return on their investment if it's a reasonable price?

 
Quote
but you know, for example in the 1800's, unless you were shot or scalped, or caught a contagious disease, you weren't killed by the food you eat and/or cancer. Ever stop to wonder why now we have this bumper crop of food allergies?

 That is not true. Many people died of food borne illnesses and diseases. That's why the methods of food safety were put into place. To make them safer to eat. Also most people did not live much past 40-50 years. Which is too short of a time for many to die of cancer. Compare the medical situation today to the 1880's. Which time period would you want to live in?

Offline Ariabella

Re: Is it worth it to fight for strict measures against Global Warming?
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2007, 12:32:40 AM »
That is not true. Many people died of food borne illnesses and diseases. That's why the methods of food safety were put into place. To make them safer to eat. Also most people did not live much past 40-50 years. Which is too short of a time for many to die of cancer. Compare the medical situation today to the 1880's. Which time period would you want to live in?

And plenty lived well in to the 1900's, many reaching over the age of 85. And with the overall picture including crime, society, belief systems and the lack of what I know the medical community is capable of? I would probably go for the 1800's or before. 

Many of the *food borne* diseases were caused by the waste from the contagious diseases, so I included them under that umbrella. And food safety is fine, but including chemicals, preservatives, hormones, etc. is responsible for a good number of illnesses today, that our wonder medical field either can't figure out or misdiagnose. I have no faith in the medical community due to many personal or family incidents, so that holds little bearing for me.