English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

or that we have no impact on global systems.

I hear all the time from those who deny global warming and global climate changes that humans are tiny players in the biosphere and we are arrogant for thinking that what we do could possibly affect the entire planets functioning.

But isn't it equally arrogant to think that we can exist with impugnity, consume all we want, dump toxins into the air and the water, and reproduce limitlessly and not eventually make an impact on the biologial system in which we live?

2007-09-04 19:16:26 · 8 answers · asked by joecool123_us 5 in Environment Global Warming

While you can't (and shouldn't) stop progress, you can progress in a sustainable and positive way.

2007-09-04 19:30:32 · update #1

8 answers

just check into history we as humans have managed to change whole countries into deserts
Lebanon to build the trading fleet of the Phoenicians .
Spain to build the Armada
Genghis Khan burned whole countries and filled the wells with sand turning vast parts of Asia and the middle east into desserts
Iraq in Biblical times was lush farming country
the Sahara used to be forests before people changed it (one cannot deforest on the equator the sun is too hot to replant any thing)
In Africa expanding settlements have dried up rivers because of the deforestation.

In Mexico local climates have changed because of farming highly erosive steep lands so that the resulting land slides exposed the bedrock .
the forests that used to hold the soils where gone ,and so were the clouds

In Northern China the country has transformed into a huge desert ,because of over grazing ,excessive use of fertilizers and over pumping subterranean water deposits .

The list is endless of man changing the biosphere and local climates all over the world .not to speak of asphalt and concrete replacing trees with civilization

And there is pollution on top of all that .
with the Global Warming story

That we have no impact is an outright lie.
Can we do something about it
In theory yes
in reality i doubt it, we cant even get it together to get one whole village to co operate.
And the whole world has to get on the ball.

The arrogance is to dream that we have been ineffectual.

or to say that we cannot stop progress
how can any one call this progress?
Destruction is not progress ,it is going backwards

Then say we cannot stop man from being a pig in Paradise

2007-09-04 20:40:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

The second one. No contest!

I think the point is realizing it isn't all about us. We aren't the only thing or the most important thing that ever existed, or ever will exist. Thinking so is a child's reasoning (you can look it up!)

Native American's treated the world they were born into with love and respect not because they feared consequences to themselves, but because it was right and made sense. All these people saying they will treat the world as if they hated it unless someone can prove to them that they personally would experience adverse consequences are being arrogant and foolish on many levels. So if everyone EXCEPT you was affected adversely, that would be OK, and you'd just go on doing what you are doing? I'm trying to itemize how many kinds of criminal that makes you...

2007-09-06 09:12:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

that's what i think of and you are able to use this as an occasion once you're attempting to debate this with different individuals etc. a youthful teen newborn starts off at an early age to smoke,drink, use drugs and that they save this up for years . lets say now that this teen newborn are of their overdue 30's or early 40's.they are nonetheless doing a similar issues that they did while they have been youthful youth.yet now they have dissimilar well-being themes.Lung and kidney and liver sickness as a results of fact of smoking and eating. this is in basic terms the beginning up. there is likewise hepatitis from abusing drugs.those days there are extra styles of this sickness.Now does not you think of that a similar could be conscious to our earth?international warming is extra beneficial than the aspects variations everywhere in the could. every time they clean a small woodland to yet up a procuring mall or some business enterprise reasons extra harm to our earth.wood help cool issues down ,save the air clean. in case you think of approximately it those themes are no longer remoted themes they are on a international huge scale.they are happening everywhere. no longer purely the U.S.!!! does not it make some scence?

2016-10-18 00:15:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'd say that the thought that we can't impact global systems is more naive than arrogant.

To think that more than 6 billion technologically advanced people can have no effect on the global climate is completely absurd.

2007-09-05 12:57:06 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3 2

It's arrogant to believe anything on faith, especially that which one would like to be true and the idea that global warming isn't happening pretty much has to be taken on faith (since there aren't any good reasons to believe it).

2007-09-04 19:35:43 · answer #5 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 2 1

Oh Mr Jello, you disappoint me. Where are your references? I thought we were doing references and clear evidence supported arguments?

No, we have got to argue from an emotional base not a well researched scientific one with evidence to show our thinking and sources? Oh well, you set the trends then I will have to follow your lead. Nowhere near as much fun though. Spoilsport. Can we do evidence based next time?

Why single out humans?

Well we are the ONLY species that does not comply with the 'Law of Return' That is that 'Whatever we take, we must return' or Nature demands a gift for every gift received' Therefore the user must pay. Clearly we don't.

Emotional argument only remember: So Why should we follow law of return. We don't have to. We can overconsume, overpopulate and mankind can die out. That is ok for the ecosystem, not so good for us Mr Jello.

So If systems are to survive and flourish instead of being depleted then we can only use certain sorts of resources provided by that system. We don't. Of course we don't mankind is greedy. We use excessively those resources that are reduced by use - oil, coal, clay deposits etc.

We use excessively those that pollute or destroy other resources if used, such as large areas of concrete, sewers running into the sea.

We take away the very medicines that help heal the land such as deforestation. (I am not as good at this emotional stuff can't I just add a few bits of evidence Mr Jello. Please. OK NO? then back to emotional)

TREES Yes Mr Jello I am happy you talk about trees and I would love to discuss the impact of trees on global systems with you. You set the questions and I will happily hop into them. I love trees. You state that there are far more trees than people? I would love to talk about deforestation with you too but I cant use evidence based research so Mr Jello emotion only I LOVE TREES.

Doesn't this emotion stuff bore you Mr Jello? I am finding it tedious already. Another better Denier/Skeptic Top Dude will be along shortly. People get bored so quickly in Enviro Mental. So at least there is a good turnover of opposition. The next one might even use research. LOL. Sorry we are arguing from emotion though so I am allowed to be emotional. YOUR RULES remember.

Back to emotion: Come on Mr Jello, natural does not necessarily mean good. Belladonna berries are natural but they can kill you if you don't use them correctly. Mute argument anyway, how can man not be natural? Technological advances in robotics I don't know of?

Now you know as well as I do, that nobody can prove that gw is not fact. That is not how science works. A theory is a theory and in science it has to be assumed correct, unless it can be falsified, sorry meant disproved. LOL.

Emotional SINS and GUILT. LOL. Even Your Emotional Argument Mr Jello has got a bit over emotional here. Now if you are saying that GW is just based on man being responsible for all sins and guilt then you HAVE to be JOKING. Original Sin. You are amusing.

Lets try the two concepts of Consideration for others and Shame. These should be a good basis for Environmental ethics. So lets think of one aspect of the way that we, mankind, are treating the eco-system, which we need to live, or other people with consideration or shame???? Nope. Can not think of one. Can you? I could give you lots of lovely research or even Youtube links to prove the opposite. BUT I am only allowed to argue from emotion so sorry.

Thanks Mr Jello for proving your arguments are not scientific, but emotional.

Please though can we argue with evidence based research next time? Try it with me. I promise I will be really gentle with you. Don't be scared I promise to be gentle. You might get to enjoy it. I would certainly find it a lot more fun.

Take care Mr Jello

2007-09-05 01:17:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Why single out humans? Why not discuss the impact of trees on global systems?

There are far more trees than people.

Oh, I get it, trees are natural, so they are good, man is unnatural and therefore bad for the environment.

Sorry, you prove that the global warming bs is just an altruistic, religious based thinking that believes man is responsible for all sins and guilt is ours to accept because of actions of others, the modern version of orginal sin.

Thanks for proving that gw is not scientific, but emotional.

2007-09-04 23:49:04 · answer #7 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 1 7

True or not, you can't stop progress.

2007-09-04 19:23:54 · answer #8 · answered by pab 7 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers