Humans and the Environment

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

IlliniDave wrote:
C40 wrote:"Simply part of the environment" eh? Of course you can say that, it's a literal truth.
Like I said to Campitor, I don't disagree we could be smarter about how we modify our environment. That things are universally good was not an assertion I made. They just are. They reflect nature taking its course.
This is the problem that I have with theories that humans are so bad. It's not really true at all. We clearly have improved our environment. We may have impacted some fauna and flora within our environment as well but this is a constant theme of how the Earth changes.

There needs to be clear reasonableness tests prior to stating categorically how bad humans are or that what we are doing is so bad. I like the CO2 example. CO2 is a natural part of our environment and yet it's being labelled a pollutant. You breath CO2 each and every day. I can understand calling Sulfur dioxide a pollutant. I can understand stating we need to stop putting lead into our petrol because it impacts our health.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

Campitor wrote:But I do believe that we are unique in respect to how fast our industrial practices impact nature. It's in this respect that I think we (humanity) underestimate how quickly things can get out of control as a result of our financial interest. Humans are good at accessing risks when the feedback loops are obvious and quick; we fail to see the negative outcomes when they are not so obvious. ...

Humans aren't evil on the whole but we can really screw things up fast when we aren't careful.
I agree with the second point but here is the thing I think we are more likely to do that via taking action. We need to be really really careful when it comes to taking action because we have a tendency to get it wrong.

As an example going to war in the middle east probably hasn't made things any better when it comes to Islamic extremism.

Another example is trying to stop industrial growth may actually lead to lots more environmental problems. I remember travelling in Indonesia and there was a little village where they had used bombs to kill the fish. They also kill the reef and it probably impacts the longer term feasibility of fishing in that area. This area wasn't industrialised however if they were would they have done what they did ? I don't think so. Typically as people advance technologically the environment is cared for more. It's easier to care about the environment when you have all these modern technological marvels and a roof over your head and food on the table.

Another issue I see is people jumping up and down over the wrong issue. If we spend a bunch of money on some cause that is probably not an issue instead of spending money on something else that may lead to a better future are we doing the right thing ? I think we definitely aren't.

We need rational thought to guide decisions that will impact our future.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

jennypenny wrote:I feel like my post wasn't clear (I was rushing because the Liverpool game was about to start). I acknowledge the outsized effect humans can have on the environment, both positive and negative. My concern is that the belief that we're special leads to an overly optimistic assessment of our ability to right the ship in time. It also seems to remove much of the guilt humans (should) feel over our devouring of the planet.

I'm a big fan of projects like SpaceX, but I think that techno-optimism removes any sense of urgency in trying to solve current problems. I guess what I'm wondering is if you want people to stop pissing in the pool, maybe we shouldn't let them think they'll be able to climb out when it gets bad or that someone will invent a magic chlorine that will eliminate the problem.
I see this as a somewhat simplistic argument. I doubt too many people would be thinking "if we stuff the world we will just fly elsewhere". I also don't like the idea that we are devouring our planet. I don't see that as true at all.

Massive extinctions happen. I don't think that we are doing that and there definitely is no proof that we are doing that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

We also save animals from extinction.

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/te ... the_brink/

I keep coming back to thinking things through calmly and rationally and if there is to be some moral bias then let's declare it. I for instance would be happy to state "let's try and ensure that we keep the Earth in as good a state as we can keep it in for all animals and plants in existence including humans".

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by Dragline »

steveo73 wrote:
Climate change definitely hasn't been politicised via companies. The money is clearly on the side of the proponents of the theory.
This statement is false. And you can easily look up where the politicians get their money, because it is public information for the most part. This is a representative sample:

http://maplight.org/us-congress/legisla ... s-lankford

I thought you believed in using actual data. Show us the data of how much money climate scientists have donated to politicians and compare it to to the corporate donations on the other side of the issue.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 2748
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by C40 »

steveo73 wrote:
Massive extinctions happen. I don't think that we are doing that and there definitely is no proof that we are doing that.
Tell us why you think this is happening: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3886/3305 ... 5ae4_c.jpg

Purely coincidence????


How do you explain the huge amount of large mammal extinctions that happened as soon as humans (I mean Native Americans) came to the Americas? (There used to be a whole bunch of large mammals in North America that suddenly all died out as soon as humans came. The theory competing with humans having hunted them to extinction is climate change, but it couldn't possibly be that right because nothing bad happens from climate change ;) ) What do you think caused all those extinctions? What proof do you have?

How do you explain the same happening in Australia as soon as humans went there? What do you think caused all those extinctions? What proof do you have?

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

C40 - honestly your comment is basically ridiculous. Give me proof that humans are so bad and we are destroying the world. If you can't provide that it ends the whole debate.

I'll be waiting.

I'll add some points to try and make this a more reasonable discussion.

1. The world today is looking pretty darn good. The environment doesn't appear bad.
2. There have been plenty of mass extinctions in the past and I don't believe that these were the faults of humans. They were a lot worse than anything that we have done.
3. We have saved animals from extinction.
4. Killing animals for food or furs or whatever happens. I assume we've made some animals extinct. If you believe though that humans will always hunt animals to extinction state that. I don't agree with you but at least own that opinion and try and back it up with some facts. If you are just saying sometimes we hunt animals to extinction the answer is yes we do. Other animals would do this as well.
5. If more humans are leading to less animals then what is your solution - kill off humans ?

The problem from my perspective is that yourself and others don't really have the ability to see complex issues in their totality as well as acknowledge the holes in your opinions.
Last edited by steveo73 on Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by George the original one »

Back to the trolling so quickly when faced with facts.

Ah, but then posted updated with a list of misdirection away from the humans causing species extinction at an accelerating pace.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

George the original one wrote:Back to the trolling so quickly when faced with facts.
Dude - your comment is trolling. Where are your facts. I would love to see them. When it came to climate warming there was no response to the one clear fact that can be verified and that is that the models aren't working.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

[quote="Dragline

Nice try but this is what I would call twisting the truth. There is a tonne of money in climate change science and it is predominantly pro-global warming. I have never said that climate scientists pay money to politicians.

I accept politicians get their money from interest groups but I bet it palls into significance compared to the amount of money spend on global warming science. I also bet the media support pales into insignificance between pro climate change beliefs and a more rational approach.

I can't find the data that I consider reliable to prove this but if you go back to the previous climate change thread I posted a YouTube video that everyone should watch. I know that the counter argument is that it is a stupid YouTube video. It is actually a talk by an extremely well respected climate scientist on the politicising of climate change and how he was vilified for producing a paper that something as uneventful as the temperature has changed a lot over I think it was the last 1000 years or so.
Last edited by steveo73 on Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 2748
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by C40 »

@Stevo: I'm the only one presenting any argument here. You have shared nothing but an opinion.

1 - When humans first came to North America, a LOT of mammal species went extinct quite quickly. Many of these were large and slow moving animals that were easily hunted, and were hunted to extinction
2 - When humans first went to Australia, a LOT of mammal species went extinct quite quickly. Many of these were large and slow moving animals that were easily hunted, and were hunted to extinction.
3 - As human population has ballooned exponentially in the last 200 years, they have caused the rate of extinctions to increase exponentially. (I'd guess these are mostly caused by converting practically all the land in some areas monocrop style agriculture and growing only 3 or 4 different plants for millions of square miles)

Yes, large amounts of extinctions have occurred before humans were even around. In the past, they've occurred during huge and at times immediate climate changes.

Do you have any basis at all for your opinion that humans haven't caused this? Do you have any ideas for what did cause it? (Try to actually share your ideas this time instead of just saying "science" and "facts" a bunch. That doesn't convince anyone here)

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by George the original one »

steveo73 wrote:
George the original one wrote:Back to the trolling so quickly when faced with facts.
Dude - your comment is trolling. Where are your facts. I would love to see them. When it came to climate warming there was no response to the one clear fact that can be verified and that is that the models aren't working.
Uh, you didn't bother looking at the peer-reviewed chart from the USGS on species extinction, did you? Or bother reading the report it is from?

For climate science, in case you hadn't noticed, the real world data is within the range predicted. Just because it is at the lower end does not mean the models aren't working.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

C40 wrote:@Stevo: I'm the only one presenting any argument here. You have shared nothing but an opinion.
You guys have got to stop this. It's crazy and delusional. You've provided nothing. You've provided a crappy chart where who knows where the data comes from and a bunch of anecdotal statements.

You guys have to start utilising facts and call them facts or opinions and call them opinions. You can't keep this type of crap up.
C40 wrote:1 - When humans first came to North America, a LOT of mammal species went extinct quite quickly. Many of these were large and slow moving animals that were easily hunted, and were hunted to extinction
2 - When humans first went to Australia, a LOT of mammal species went extinct quite quickly. Many of these were large and slow moving animals that were easily hunted, and were hunted to extinction.
3 - As human population has ballooned exponentially in the last 200 years, they have caused the rate of extinctions to increase exponentially. (I'd guess these are mostly caused by converting practically all the land in some areas monocrop style agriculture and growing only 3 or 4 different plants for millions of square miles)

Yes, large amounts of extinctions have occurred before humans were even around. In the past, they've occurred during huge and at times immediate climate changes.

Do you have any basis at all for your opinion that humans haven't caused this? Do you have any ideas for what did cause it? (Try to actually share your ideas this time instead of just saying "science" and "facts" a bunch. That doesn't convince anyone here)
What are you on about. I said humans have probably caused some extinctions as have other animals as has shit that just happens. Try and articulate your issue in a calm rational fashion. Don't give me made up facts and don't take the high moral ground and provide some sort of thought process regarding what we should do.

Just start being somewhat logical.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

[quote="George the original one

This simply is bizarre. I don't have the time to go into detail on that chart or read that report. I'm just stating that it changes nothing.

As for climate science yes the data is within the predicted range and I never said it wasn't. I said that it's getting closer and close to the 5% range where it would definitively be considered to not be statistically viable. I think it's definitely going to hit that area over the next couple of decades and then your proof is gone. At this point only a fool would be stating that climate change is a big issue.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 2748
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by C40 »

@ Steveo - Responding to some things you added to your post with an edit:
steveo73 wrote:C40 - honestly your comment is basically ridiculous. Give me proof that humans are so bad and we are destroying the world. If you can't provide that it ends the whole debate.
Ok, first, I was talking about the balance of mammals and about extinctions. You're the one that keeps talking about humans "destroying the world". Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're not fooling anyone with that crap.

Edit for clarity: What I'm claiming is that humans are causing a large amount of extinctions.

steveo73 wrote: I'll be waiting.

I'll add some points to try and make this a more reasonable discussion.

1. The world today is looking pretty darn good. The environment doesn't appear bad.
2. There have been plenty of mass extinctions in the past and I don't believe that these were the faults of humans. They were a lot worse than anything that we have done.
3. We have saved animals from extinction.
4. Killing animals for food or furs or whatever happens. I assume we've made some animals extinct. If you believe though that humans will always hunt animals to extinction state that. I don't agree with you but at least own that opinion and try and back it up with some facts. If you are just saying sometimes we hunt animals to extinction the answer is yes we do. Other animals would do this as well.
5. If more humans are leading to less animals then what is your solution - kill off humans ?

The problem from my perspective is that yourself and others don't really have the ability to see complex issues in their totality as well as acknowledge the holes in your opinions.
2 - Are you agreeing that humans are causing the recent exponential increase in extinctions here? (and just saying it's not so bad a thing?)
3 - And? What does this have to do with whether or not humans have caused the extinctions?
4 - Humans have hunted many species to extinction. (I noted two cases above when humans first came to North America and Australia. I wished I could recall the number of extinctions that happened then, but it was a lot, and they happened right when the humans came)
5 - First let's agree on what is happening, then we could talk about whether we think changes should be made, and if so, what... If we don't even agree on what's happening, there's no use talking about any potential solutions, or making up hyperbolic ones to try to support your lack of an actual argument.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

Okay - so let's calmly try and go through this like rational human beings.

2. I'm not sure that humans are causing an exponential increase in extinctions. I'm not even sure that there is an exponential increase in extinctions. I'd like to really see what is behind that data. I'm inclined to think it's false or there is more to the picture., The next point on this is that there have been I'm sure much much more extinctions in the past that have been far more dramatic. Then the next point is what does it even mean if it is true. Will it continue ? What is the cause ? I'm just guessing but just say this is what happens when humans become more technologically advanced but at some point we actually start saving animals. I don't know all the details here but I'd like to see detail.
3. I think it shows that the issue is more complex than what is being stated. I have an example of this in the answer to your second point.
4. I don't know what you want to state about this. Yes it happens. Is that causing your massive exponential extinction rise. I really doubt it.
5. To agree on what is happening you need to give me some more information. I agree that is the best thing to do though. I don't use hyperbolic arguments or better put compared to the hyperbolic arguments on this forum in relation to environmental issues you can consider me the highest of the high zen buddhists so if I make a million or so hyperbolic arguments it will be a drop in the ocean of what the arguments that have been used against me. I just want clear rational factual information to be provided and then we can all come to different conclusions about what we believe we should do.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

Just to help out I looked this up and I found some analysis that sounds reasonable and plausible. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/.

This is again a very complex issue. Here is the little reality checkpoint that people that want to go crazy about aren't going to like. The data is extremely poor when it comes to providing high quality factual information. In stating that it's still a lot better than for instance global warming.

Here is my take. I think that it's probably an issue but it's a tough issue to do something about and we need to be very careful in how we react.

So humans are changing the environment in certain ways that will lead to a loss of of habitat for some species and some of those species won't survive. This to me should clearly be defined as urbanisation and deforestation. I'm not sure what to do about this. It's a really tough issue because I don't believe you can state that humans should remain living in rural environments and not be exposed to technological advances or that this would even help in the long term. I also think that over time when communities advance this happens less and less.

There are some people that are dickheads (this is my opinion). So people will go out and kill lions and elephants and request stuff like ivory to help them get a hard dick and get laid. This sort of stuff is just plain dumb. I don't agree with it at all. I think the more advanced we become the less people will in general do this type of stuff.

Humans also have a tendency to try and fix things but they are stupid arrogant morons. So we get things like adding rabbits or foxes to the local environment or whatever (it could be a plant) and these additions to the local environment kill off other species. This is something that I think we should be extremely careful about. It's an action not bred from being a dick but trying to help but it probably has caused a tonne of issues.

The last issue is probably things like overfishing and/or over farming various animal products. I don't agree with this but it is again a tough one to handle. Maybe this will just resolve itself.

Anyway - that is my initial thoughts on the subject.

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by ducknalddon »

steveo73 wrote:Climate change definitely hasn't been politicised via companies.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... al-effort/
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-wa ... ndustries/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby

These are huge companies, the amount of money involved dwarfs that spent on science.

EMJ
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by EMJ »

Shell's 1991 warning: climate changing ‘at faster rate than at any time since end of ice age’

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nd-ice-age

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by steveo73 »

There is no way in hell that fossil fuel companies are having anywhere near the influence on the theory of AGW than the climate change scientists who earn money from this field. It's not even close.

These comments that yourself and others are making are clearly delusional.

I'll point it out to you and see if you can accept the reality of the situation. The field of climate science is definitively not proven science. There are holes right through it and all over it. That is obvious if you do the tiniest little piece of research. We have that on one side and on the other side we have a predominant belief from lots of people including the media and the public that climate science is a real 100% verifiable fact.

We have a field of science where it is increasingly hard to speak out and state the reality of where the science is and people that do get crucified. There is also a tonne of money being poured into climate science. On top of that basically all the research that is getting completed is based on AGW being a 100% verifiable fact.

It's basically impossible to state that climate science isn't completely politicised and on the side of pro AGW.

If this wasn't politicised we wouldn't being having instances like climategate. We would have people investigating this and clearly stating the issues that surround the science. We wouldn't have movies coming out like "An Inconvenient Truth".

I compare this to for instance eating a vegan diet. The head of the American Cardiologist society comes out and says the data is really good that a Vegan diet is really healthy. At the same time he clearly states we need to do more research to prove this. Now to me the evidence for eating a lot less meat is a hell of a lot stronger than AGW alarmism and yet these comments simply state the reality of the situation. When we start hearing much less arrogant comments regarding AGW and scientists stating the issue factually and looking at the holes in the theory then you guys may have a point. That time is a long long way off at this point.

Just to be clear if this field cleaned itself up and was open and honest about the issues within the field then I would have no problems with it. At this point there is basically no integrity in the field and I think it comes down to the issue being politicised.

Fish
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:09 am

Re: Humans and the Environment

Post by Fish »

Since we're 0/2 on climate change discussions I suggest we consider CC out of scope for this discussion. Let's stick to steveo's original topic and avoid making it 0/3. ;)

Locked