Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
There are 0 guests and 1 members in the forums right now.
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3747
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-21 01:48
That's my prediction "15 years from now." Some may consider that an unrealistic prediction, but unless some major changes happen within people where they are more interested in using our resources wisely than generating the almighty dollar and personal selfish agendas, it's going to happen that fast and in our lifetimes. Pretty scary...
Check out this page:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/earth.html and click on the "Launch Interactive".
While that information does not directly highlight the problem of humankind's greed problem, it does show the resulting symptoms if you think about it. Check out the other pages on that site at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/
Current example of consequences for people not caring how mankind treats their natural resources: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/easter.html
Combine the greed of some people with the over-abundance of the human population spells major trouble in the near future for all life on earth. Those with greedy desire along with lavish lifestyles of waste and excess are generally the most at fault, but we all are responsible for our own amount of greed, instant gratification, and desire for power over others. Until the wealthy and the common folk alike treat the earth's natural resources much more respectably, we're dooming ourselves—not a savory prospect for me or you. It will happen fast at the rate it's going.
Sadly, mankind has largely remained unchanged in their behavior patterns and the future doesn't look good unless someone steps in and stops us from annihilating the human race and all life on earth. We've been getting these warnings for the past 60+ years and so far the pace of destroying this earth remains unabated. More wars, more products being made, more cars, terrorists wishing to unleash their bio-weapons on people if given the chance, creating inferior products because it's cheaper and keeps people buying more and more and the cycle keeps forcing this earth to endure more and more. It's crazy and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Just a few points:
------------------
People think it's a big deal when cars are made to burn fuel more cleanly. However, we could be much further along if we'd stop making cars burn gas in the first place but that goes against the agenda of the rich oil men and the car manufacturing companies who are more interested in profit. Many cars have built in obsolescence so that they break down and we need to go and buy another new car that lasts another 6 years or so and the vicious cycle goes on. We don't build cars with the future in mind. Instead we only think of the now.
And what about decentralizing electricity production and using methods that cut down on the dependence of coal, gas, and dirty nuclear fuel due to the production of electricity? That could be cut down significantly if we'd make better use of solar power and wind power. Set up each house to have their own solar panels and small wind power generators atop each roof. Sure the big utility owners might not like that, but if that helps save our future lives, it's worth it. Too bad the big electric utilities are more interested in building more nuclear power plants to keep dominion over the power production than letting each of us have that control and the use of cleaner electric producing methods.
Something to think about and think about hard. Those who have the power to change things, take this to heart and use your influence to do good. Otherwise... (doesn't need reiteration)
[ Message was edited by: Curt 04/20/2004 06:03 pm ]
|
 |
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3747
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-21 08:22
... Perhaps 20-25 years from now but that's still not far away. (being more generous with prediction)
|
|
Enterprise
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
# Posts: 132
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-22 07:11
Mankind's greed helps destroy earth in 10-15 yrs??
Nah...you're wrong. You're just interested in self-preservation. The planet may be uninhabitable for us in a few years but it will go on quite happily without us. Let's face it...if we're stupid enough to destroy our own enviroment, why is that such a bad thing anyway? The enviroment will come back and maybe a more caring life form will evolve.
I vote for the dolphins as the next dominant species. They'll do a better job than us.
|
|
teodor_2004
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
# Posts: 113
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-22 10:06
enterprise you have my vote 
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-22 16:32
These predictions have been made repeatedly over the past 50-100 years and lo and behold.... we're still here. People who say the earth is overpopulated have obviously never flew in an airplane across the U.S. or elsewhere. Sure, cities are full of people, but there sure is a heck of a lot of space available everywhere else. The last stat I heard was that only 15% of the U.S. land is populated. That leaves a lot of room to grow.
But will we destroy the planet? Not likely. Should we conserver our resources absolutely, but not to the detriment of human life. Many want to "preserve nature" which means letting nature run rampant and destroy itself (which it does... forest fires, anyone?) or to keep people out of it completely. I think nature is there to be enjoyed and we should take care of it for the purpose of enjoying it.
|
|
excell
Staff
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14513
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-22 17:44
Curt your post was good and the link was interesting, but we must remember that this is a search engine focused forum.
"In the year twentyfive
twentyfive if man is still alive
If woman can survive they may find.
In the year thirtyfive thirtyfive
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth tell no lies
Ev'rything you think do and say is in the pill you took today.
In the year fortyfive fortyfive
You ain't gonna need your teeth won't need your eyes"
|
|
thejenn
Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-22 21:21
As a conservationist, I agree that I'd like to see us take better care of the resources that we've been blessed with. I think there's such a thing as responsible consumption rather than conspicuous consumption.
But...at the same time, I think it's mighty big-headed of us to believe that we're capable of destroying a system as complex as the earth's environment. As Enterprise says, we may make it uninhabitable for mankind (though even that I doubt), but we're not going to destroy the earth.
What I find interesting is that in many ways, we're actually better off. The U.S. has more forestation today than we did when the country was founded. Additionally, we, and most other industrialized nations, have cleaner air than we did 50, or even 100 years ago. Technology moves forward and it learns how to make better use of the environment. Progress may not be as speedy as we want it to be, but we're working on it.
It's the nations that are still decades behind us in technology that are filling the air with toxins, just like we did when we were at that stage.
Oh...and I like my eyes very much thank you. I think I'll keep them. 
|
|
greenleaves
Joined: Mar 21, 2002
# Posts: 720
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-22 23:02
"The U.S. has more forestation today than we did when the country was founded."
I personally doubt this, but I do not know enough about the US to disscuss this point. However, the planet, as a hole, only has a fraction of the forests it used to have.
It's the nations that are still decades behind us in technology that are filling the air with toxins, just like we did when we were at that stage.
The difference is, that when the US started, and devasted the enviroment without any regulation, the american people benefited from this activity, although they lost a lot of their ecosistems. Third world countries, like where I am from, have their air "fill" with pollution, their forest destroid and their watters poisoned. But not for the benefit of the people. This happens in these countries because in the US/most first world countries, to do mining (for example) will have an enourmous cost. This cost will come, in large part, doe to the enviromental requirements (it isn't cheap to eco-friendly). Although their is regulation in third world countries, major US and other first world companies come, pay off politions and exploit virgin territories with out any monetary loss toward preserving the enviroment. The companies come to save money, and destroy everithing. The polititions say to the people that it's to produce jobs. But once the mining/deforesting/fishing is over, these multi-million dollar companies take off. Leaving third world people, with out a job, again, and with out the enviroment they used to enjoy.
BTW I think the 25 year predition is exagerated. I do agree that what goes on is horrible. But there are many other horrible things that happen:
- Thousands of pounds of food are dumped into the pacific ocean every year, while there are people starving.
- Wiald animals are captured and put behind bars; what was their crime?
- Iraki men, women and children are being killed by people who they don't even know, with the excuce of downtaking a tiran (this, to re-intall a new one). It is also, just a coincedance, that irak is one of the worlds largest oil producers.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that the world is a dark, ugly, nasty and cold place. The trick is, even though you live in a swamp, to cultivate your own garden (metaforilly) and enjoy the light, the beauty, the niceness and the love of what you grow (karma).
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-23 15:56
Life is 100% what you make out of what you're dealt. Two people can grow up in very similar circumstances and turn out completely different. One says "How could I change, look what I was brought up in!" while the other says, "How could I NOT change, look what I was brought up in!"
|
|
thejenn
Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-23 16:25
"I personally doubt this"
You can doubt it, but that doesn't make it any less so. I don't say that to be sarcastic, I say it to be truthful. Now, I will say that while there is more forestation, it's not necessairly better forestation.
For example...when the timber companies go in and cut down trees for lumber, they plant, on average, 12-15 trees for every one they cut down. After all, it's in their best interest to plant new trees so that they continue to have a harvest. This has helped the cause when it comes to reforestation of areas in the U.S. that were once decimated.
Now, at the same time, it has meant a shift in where that forestation occurs. Sure, some areas have been cleared to make room for houses, and that may mean that ground that was formerly fields now has trees on it. The other issue here is the variety of trees that are being planted. Timber companies tend to plant all the same tree when they are reforesting. In reality, nature relies on a healthy mix of tree species to keep it free from disease. In reality, the timber companies could do more by planting a variety of hardwood and softwood trees when they reforest. The situation isn't ideal, but it's far from the horrific situation that many people would have you believe.
As for third-world nations...and what we've done in the past, well, it's great to play the blame game after the fact. The reality is that people here in the U.S. and in other early-industrialized nations didn't know what they were doing. So many things in life are learned after the fact, especially when it comes to mistakes. It's very easy to blame the U.S. and other nations for destroying the environment and ignore the progress they've made in cleaning it back up. Blaming me for what my grandfather did doesn't really get you any place. Instead, it makes more sense to talk with me and learn what i learned from my grandfather's mistakes so that we can move forward together and make things better than they were.
Thus, as I said, the industrialized nations that are now gaining the knowledge and experience to correct problems of the past and avoid those same problems in the future should be working with the nations that don't currently have the money or experience to build systems comparable to what we have today. If we can help other countries avoid making the same mistakes that we did, doesn't that leave us all better off?
Or...are we going to win this war by sitting around and whining and complaining about what the big bad U.S. (and England and France and Australia and other nations) did 50 or 100 years ago? It may make you feel better to make us the bad guy, but does it solve the problem?
"Iraki men, women and children are being killed by people who they don't even know, with the excuce of downtaking a tiran."
Do you, perhaps, have stats and figures to show the amount of civilian casualties that have been caused by coaltion forces and would you then care to compare them to the number of Iraqi people that were killed, maimed, tortured and vanished during a certain tyrant's reign?
Be against our presence there, it won't bother me in the slighest, but do not accuse our nation of killing more innocent civilians than their own leader did.
|
|
greenleaves
Joined: Mar 21, 2002
# Posts: 720
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-23 23:01
It's very easy to blame the U.S. and other nations for destroying the environment and ignore the progress they've made in cleaning it back up. Blaming me for what my grandfather did doesn't really get you any place. Instead, it makes more sense to talk with me and learn what i learned from my grandfather's mistakes so that we can move forward together and make things better than they were.
I never placed blame. I think what I wrote was taken in the wrong way. You seem to be thinking that what I said was a moral judgement. If I say someone got killed cold bloded, that may sound like I am judging it. But if the person killed, was an assasin himself (for example Bin Laden), then the picture gets turned around. Please don't confuse me stating facts, and me stating my moral.
If we can help other countries avoid making the same mistakes that we did, doesn't that leave us all better off?
Never argued that.
...whining and complaining about what the big bad U.S. (and England and France and Australia and other nations) did 50 or 100 years ago? It may make you feel better to make us the bad guy, but does it solve the problem?
I wasn't winning about "the big bad US". I believe all politicall systems suck. I remember a great quote, I don't remember of who, that read "Democracy, is the worst form of goverment, untill you start to think about the alternatives". You could say I was winning, and that I was making every country look like "the bad guy". But I wasn't winning, and I wasn't placing anybody as "the bad guy". Life is not dysney, there is not "right" and "wrong", there are no "good" and "bad" guys, life isn't black and white, there are only shades in between". I was trying to point out that things, aren't the way they "should" be, but that doesn't mean you can't make the best of it. So my "winning", or in less harsh words, my complaning, wasn't about the US, it was about every country. And it was intended to be, constructive critisism, again, not specifically directed to the US, but to all countries. Does my constructive critisism solve the proble? I believe, there is not solution to the problem of life, so the answer to that question is no. My comments are only intended to reflect my thoughts.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3747
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-24 01:04
I'm thinking that some people don't have a clear scope on all the problems with mankind. That web site that I looked at just made me think about what was going on in this world. Remember, for everything that is fixed, it seems twice as much damage is done in other ways. Fix one thing, create twice as much damage in another way. No, that's not true in every instance, but seems to be the average for how this earth is being taken care of.
The reason I believe it's that way is because the big boys making decisions are primarily interested in making money. They put on the facade that they are helping the earth to be a better place when in fact they are mainly interested in their own current lives and deliberately deluding themselves into thinking everything is alright and promoting that same thinking to everybody else through their various false reports that many believe to be true. It's easier to just see roses because it's more pleasant. There's lots of problems and it's not limited to messing up the earth and making it unliveable.
Nah...you're wrong. You're just interested in self-preservation.
Very short-sighted comment. If you would have looked at my comments in more detail and also went to those web pages and viewed the stats and so forth, you'd realize I was talking about all life on this earth. How many species of plants and animals go extinct each year? You know there are lots. There was much more diverse plant and animal life 1000's of years ago and the earth was more in balance. Today, the earth is being messed up at a tremendous rate. We keep hearing about how deforestation is happening faster than reforestation but the information keeps getting pushed under the rug by corporations. There is less wildlife now than 500 years ago—educated guess on my part, but I bet I'm right on that.
I vote for the dolphins as the next dominant species. They'll do a better job than us.
What dolphins? They might be all dead too!
Also consider the biological warfare aspect. Who's to say some scientist won't accidently create a germ that spreads so fast and furious and gets out of control that it decimates a large part of the human and animal population or creates such a powerful bomb that it literally does destroy the earth. 25 years from now, it could very well be possible. And so what if it's not possible 25 years from now but possible 35 years from now. It would still be true. Humanity is playing with fire and eventually it'll kill all life on earth. During the cold war, it was sad that if all the nuclear weapons were unleashed at that time, no life would survive except for perhaps the cockroaches.
Let's face it...if we're stupid enough to destroy our own enviroment, why is that such a bad thing anyway?
That comment really hints at how you feel about life. You seem to not value life. I value life very much. That's precisely the attitude that's going to help mess up this planet further... very uncaring.
These predictions have been made repeatedly over the past 50-100 years and lo and behold.... we're still here. People who say the earth is overpopulated have obviously never flew in an airplane across the U.S. or elsewhere.
Another very short sighted view point. You seem to forget that you need a large percentage of land to help one person survive in the modern age. Couple that with all the problems created due to greed and that's a nasty future prospect. One person now days uses lots more resources than a similar person used 200 years ago, but that fact eludes you based on your comment. With each person using more and more resources unwisely and a much bigger population in 30 years, what do you think will happen? The earth will continue to sustain life for the next 100 years? Each decade that passes causes each person on this earth to consume more and more resources because the powers that be are not interested in using resources more wisely. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's getting better. It's not.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10465
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-25 22:40
In the UK, we are looking at some of highest density coastal housing areas, mostly in the South-East, being flooded right out by sea-water by about 2050 to 2080. At least one million (by then nearer 2 million) people will have to move and rebuild. That is 2 to 4% of the population.
|
|
philh
Joined: Sep 14, 2001
# Posts: 3050
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-25 22:45
Spooky stuff, g1smd
|
|
JQ
Staff
Joined: Mar 11, 2001
# Posts: 2765
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-26 03:44
Cows, think about cows for a moment...
I forget the statistics, but the fact is that an acre devoted to soybean production will feed a heck of a lot more people than an acre devoted to raising beef.
If every country on the planet ate beef to the degree that Americans do, the planet would be unable to sustain itself.
Not to mention the effects of methane gas from all the cow flatulence.
So, think about that next time you're eating a hamburger or a steak. I gave up red meat ~30 years ago and eat chicken or fish only occasionally. I really don't miss it and there's considerable evidence to show you're better off without it, or at least so much of it.
|
|
thejenn
Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-26 16:38
"Democracy, is the worst form of goverment, until you start to think about the alternatives."
Now THAT is a good quote.
Of course you do realize the U.S. isn't a Democracy. (It's a Representative Republic.)
Tee hee...sorry, had to say it. I still agree with you in theory.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10465
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-27 00:38
In theory there is no difference between practise and theory; but in practise, there is.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-27 01:06
What gets me with the "earth is doomed" arguments is they have been around for as long as earth itself. The one of the best picture I've seen that sums up the lack of foresight and knowledge by those that make these arguments was a picture maybe 20 years ago of people claiming that another ice age was just around the corner. Well, how things change...now we are facing "global warming". The earth is not doomed and we will inhabit the planet just fine until Jesus returns! I'm not preaching here, just pointing out that man has been unable to destroy the planet yet and I highly doubt we ever will. Besides... should the climates change to the point of being uninhabitable, shouldn't evolution allow us to adapt so we can continue to live here?
|
|
kevchadders
Joined: Feb 18, 2002
# Posts: 581
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-27 12:44
It reminds me of all the doom mongering about the Y2K a few years back... (millennium bug)
Where planes were going to fall out of the skies... and power plants were going to blow up...
Just good marketing PR, created by the software companies to help sell the product to solve the millennium bug problem if you ask me!!!!
Did anyone hear about any Y2K related problems happening in the end?
|
|
thejenn
Joined: Aug 08, 2001
# Posts: 9196
|
Posted: 2004-Apr-27 15:53
"Did anyone hear about any Y2K related problems happening in the end?"
Umm...I think I heard of someone with a Commodore 64 that wouldn't run Pong simulations anymore...
...it was all very tragic and sad. 
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
