Why we shouldn't care about the environment

My point isnt so much that it doesnt matter, more thats all an illusion of how important we think we are.

The dominant life form on the planet is bacteria, 5 million trillion trillion of them, and they are largely responsible for the "environment" you talk about. Including us, the human body isnt just one living thing

This is simply not true.

 

What does minimizing our impact have to do with thinking we're important?

Are you saying that human activity has no significant effect on the ecosystems and that everything that happens is because of the bacteria? I don't know what you're getting at.

If you know of an animal on this planet that has a bigger impact than we do, that's not something you should keep to yourself. Maybe we can stop climate change if we figure out which animal is causing it.

 

Read some of the shit you post, Then come back and call 'stupidity'. But don't think too hard, It would be a shame if you hurt yourself.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

Why are you even bothering with that guy?

He's obviously dysgenics personified and I really don't think you're going to get an interesting debate out of him. If you like feeling superior that's one thing but it's probably better if you pick a target that's at least semi-literate and doesn't regurgitate tired cliches like 'don't think too hard I wouldn't want you to hurt yerself nyuk nyuk'.

 

I'm not. Initially I did not respond to him directly because I knew I would get pig all back. I then responded to PR's post and was hoping for something in response to my questions - I did not. Not unusual. I then just, basically, wished Yogi a Merry Christmas. I knew I was not going to get an interesting if any debate out of him. So was not attempting to.

 

What is there to debate?

 

With you, nothing.

 

Post#93 and 97 begs to differ. You asked where PR and I was, Then mentioned 'conversation' and 'debate'. Now, You claim nothing?

 

Maybe I wasn't clear.

You: 'What? I have to sit and troll it like you?'

Me: 'It called having a conversation.'

That's what I prefer.

In other words, I'm not 'trolling'.

'My last comment was just in jest. I have been here long enough to know the habits of posters such as yourself and PR. I was not really expecting any further comment/factual information.'

In the same words:

'My last comment was just in jest. I have been here long enough to know the habits of posters such as yourself and PR. I was not really expecting any further comment/factual information.'

I have not used the word 'debate'.

Although, that's what I prefer.

 

I was hoping for a response from PR about 'What International environmental laws are you talking about?' But...refer to my previous post.

 

You didn't, I apologize. Post 107 had the word debate in it.

But a conversation on the internet, Unless in a chat room, Is in a sense a debate. I gave my opinion, You had a rebuttal.

Either way, Merry Christmas to you as well.

 

To you (indirectly) I gave my opinion, too. I didn't ask you anything or to show me any links did I?

I already wished you a MC, it's a bit late now. Have a horrible Christmas :frown:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change

 

China: Ratification: January 5, 1993

 

Yes, bacteria is the dominant life form on this planet both in volume and numbers, and more important the speed at which they can change things. The total mass of bacteria is greater than all other plants and animals combined

The three main greenhouse gases after water vapour are Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide. The warming effect of Methane is 20 times C02, N20 is almost 300 times C02. C02 stays in the atmosphere, 30 years to a century, Methane a dozen years, N20 over a century

For all greenhouse emmissions, currently and roughly methane represents 6%, N20 about 3%. But because its warming effect is almost 300 times C02 and it stays in the atmosphere a little longer, that 3% of N20 is 10 times more damaging than all the C02 getting released, the 6% of methane twice as damaging as that C02, but for only the next dozen years.

So even amongst all those that agree the greenhouse effect is man made and we "should do something about it", too hard to get them to agree .

All the evil multinational petrochemical companies with their rich CEOs are an easy target. A power station pops up in your backyard, thats an easy target, cos look at all that smoke, that has to be bad. But its not them that are the biggest contributors, its fertilizer, growing stuff to feed the 2nd and 3rd world. And the only real way that N20 gets leeched out of the atmosphere and turned into nitrates is by, you guessed it, bacteria.



Lower order life forms produce biomass at a far higher density than when higher order life forms do it. Open desert the least inefficient landscape for creating biomass, followed by open ocean....at the other end rainforests then wetlands the most efficient

So as for this:

One of the harder parts to wrap your head around as it goes against everything you've been told and seems to defy logic, is that wetlands and rainforests are good for biodiversity and look pretty, but in terms of pumping out those warming gases, too much is a bad thing. Because in a water saturated environment bacetria will leach stuff out of the water or water rich soil and give off those gases, where in drier places like temperate forests they will leach stuff out of the atmosphere, turn N20 into nitrates .

Or another way, if the earth was covered in an environment like when Luke Skywalker went to see Yoda, it would be a lot hotter than it is now, no matter what humans have done, We will never end up like Venus as we are not close enough to the sun and there isnt enough sulfur around. The earth can never get too hot as ironically its mostly covered by oceans. And we simply cannot effect change faster or more densely than all those single cell organisms - the ones that actually rule this planet.

In a couple hundred years, the earth may not look all that pretty, may get hotter, maybe too hot for us to survive, but not hot enough to really change anything, only take another couple hundreds years for nature and all those little creatures to put things back the way they were. We were never in control

 

^I don't really know how any of what you just said absolves human beings of their role in it all. Agriculture is a human phenomenon, and corporations are just as involved in agriculture as they are in energy production. I don't know why you're bringing that up unless you're agreeing with me. The bacteria didn't set up the farms, they just exploited their existence... and it still doesn't mean that everything would be the same if we were choosing cleaner forms of energy.

It doesn't really matter what the 'biggest' problem is with something like this... it's the amount of greenhouses gases total that is warming the planet, and it isn't a bad thing to cut down on any one of them, or all of them. CO2 is probably the easiest one to cut down on, because it counts for over 80% of total emissions and it's mostly from burning fuels that there are already alternatives to. It would be easy to make smaller or hybrid cars, smaller more efficient houses, get away from dirty energy sources.

And that small amount of nitrous oxide doesn't mean that the huge amounts of CO2 produced by fossil fuels is irrelevant, or that the methane produced by natural gas, landfills and the melting of the polar ice caps isn't a big deal.

It definitely doesn't mean that if we were to cut down CO2 or methane emissions, that it would be a useless gesture. The Earth can tolerate some greenhouse gases, just not the amount that we're pumping into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

And the reason the wetlands are producing more greenhouses gases is because of how climate change has altered their composition... coastal wetlands are flooding, which contributes to algal blooms... it isn't some 'natural' phenomenon that would have happened regardless.

I don't know how you can say we're not in control here. We might not have control over the effects of our behavior, but we do control the cause... and we can always stop causing it and possibly find a way to cause positive changes instead of negative ones.

 

Anybody and everybody irrespective of his circumstance with the society he lives in can and must want a good environment. This way he can hope for the justice of God's creation to be his own. Care for it respects justice mindedness and can't lose for the otherwise sinning in humanity which goes on.