Are we REALLY killing our planet?

[MikeSun5]

I'm wondering exactly how much we're really damaging our planet through pollution and waste, as opposed to what the media tells us...

Some of the excitement about global warming has subsided in the wake of scientific proof, and I still haven't seen any pictures of this "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" that's supposedly twice the size of Texas (or twice the size of France, depending on who's reporting). As far as melting ice caps and the like, there have been substantial climate fluctuations in the past -- maybe we're on the upswing of a Dansgaard-Oeschger event or something?

I know full well that humans' habits of resource consumption and trash disposal (or lack thereof) are certainly not helping the situation, but I can't help but wonder how much of that is inflated by the media and others as a scare tactic?

[Thunder]

One asteroid could make this whole conversation...meaningless.

[ImaginalDisc]

A) There is no great pacific garbage patch. Between the salt, the intense UV light, and the wave action hardly any trash that floats can survive more than a few months.

B) That has nothing to do with global warming.

C) No we're not killing the planet.

D) We're killing things on it, like coral through ship explosive fishing for the aquarium trade, silting, and warming. And vast tracts of rain forest in poor countries are gobbled up to feed more industrialized nations' hunger for hardwood.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

A) There is no great pacific garbage patch. Between the salt, the intense UV light, and the wave action hardly any trash that floats can survive more than a few months.

According to the reports, most of the floating stuff is plastic that can definitely last more than a few months - the "Friendly Floatees" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Floatees) were in the oceans for over 10 years, despite the salt, sun, and waves. I'm sure there's a lot of garbage in the ocean, just like I'm sure combustion engines don't help the atmosphere. I'm just not sure if it's as much as everyone says it is.

[Robster, FCD]

Well, with as many species as are threatened, endangered or recently extinct, we are doing damage.

We won't kill the earth though. Make it uninhabitable for modern human society, possibly.

[Travis]

Killing the planet isn't the issue. Even under the worst of predictions the planet would survive quite fine with runaway global warming.

We, on the other hand, would be screwed. Modern human societies have a much more tenuous grasp surviving on this planet than life itself does.

[BPSCG]

How to destroy the Earth:

Quote:

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy.

This is not a guide for wusses whose aim is merely to wipe out humanity. I (Sam Hughes) can in no way guarantee the complete extinction of the human race via any of these methods, real or imaginary. Humanity is wily and resourceful, and many of the methods outlined below will take many years to even become available, let alone implement, by which time mankind may well have spread to other planets; indeed, other star systems. If total human genocide is your ultimate goal, you are reading the wrong document. There are far more efficient ways of doing this, many which are available and feasible RIGHT NOW. Nor is this a guide for those wanting to annihilate everything from single-celled life upwards, render Earth uninhabitable or simply conquer it. These are trivial goals in comparison.

This is a guide for those who do not want the Earth to be there anymore.

[SezMe]

Hopefully, Beeps' next post will be on-topic.

[BPSCG]

Ingredients:

• 1 pint fresh strawberries, trimmed
• 1/4 cup sugar
• 2 teaspoons fresh lemon juice
• 2 cups ice cubes (about 11)

Preparation:
Put a 9-or-10 inch metal cake pan in the freezer. In a blender blend the strawberries, the sugar, and the lemon juice until the mixture is smooth and the sugar is dissolved. Add the ice cubes, blend the mixture until it is smooth, and pour it into the cold pan. Freeze the mixture for 30 to 40 minutes, or until it is frozen around the edge but still soft in the center, stir the strawberry ice, mashing the frozen parts with a fork, and spoon it into 2 bowls.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

How to destroy the Earth:

The rocks last a long time. There have been mass extinctions of species in the past, often involving climate change. We are a species. Even if climate does not wipe out human life as a species, and I doubt that it will, the species of homo sapiens will see mass suffering and death. Other species not so adaptive will be wiped out. In such chaos and destruction, property rights will be infringed. That is what really worries me.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

I'm wondering exactly how much we're really damaging our planet through pollution and waste, as opposed to what the media tells us...

The trouble is there are many separate issues that tend to get conflated in these sort of discussions. Firstly, we're not damaging the actual planet in the slightest. The Earth is a damn great lump of rock and the worst humans, or any life for that matter, can do barely amounts to messing up its makeup. Even having flying rocks from space smack into it does little more than add the odd dent here and there.

Assuming you actually mean to talk about life on the planet rather than the planet itself, there are still a number of separate issues. Wiping out life itself really isn't an issue. The flying space rocks mentioned above did far better than we could manage, and even they never managed to kill everything. Life is pretty damn resilient.

However, while life in general is fairly tough, specific forms of life may not be. Killing everything may not be feasible, but killing a large proportion of certain kinds of life is. For examople, the K/T impact is famous for wiping out the dinosaurs, but left mammals and birds relatively untouched. Humans have the same sort of effect - we actively promote the welfare of some animals like cows, kittens and the like, we indirectly help others like rats, we purposely wipe others out, like tigers and rhinos, and we accidentally kill others by doing things like cutting down trees. We're not about to wipe the Earth clean of life, but we can do some pretty hefty readjustment of ecosystems. Whether you count that as damage or simply natural evolution is a matter of taste.

In the end, what you need to remember is that we look at things from a human perspective. Humans have evolved under certain conditions. Even more importantly, human civilisation has developed under very specific conditions, and modern civilisation even more so. The fact that climate and ecosystems change naturally is irrelevant, no matter how natural or unnatural it might be, we're not currently capable of dealing with a world with 60m higher sea levels and double the oxygen content in the atmosphere, for example. That may have been great for dinosaurs, but not for us.

The problem with global warming, pollution, fish stocks and what have you is not that the world is going to end, or even that the world is going to end for humans. The problem is that our current civilisation is based on having the sea stay put, having drinkable water in particular places, having food swimming around the place, and so on. If those things change, whether through moving or simply being used up, and whether due to entirely natural causes or through our own faults, we're going to have issues.

And the more people there are, the bigger those problems will be. A 1m change in sea level 2000 years ago may have got a few villages a bit damp. A 1m change in sea level now could mean millions of homes under water, simply because there are millions more homes than there used to be.

As for the specifics of how much we're damaging things compared to what is reported, that depends entirely on what reports you've been reading. Personally, I've never even heard of any "Great Pacific Garbage Patch", and I doubt it exists. On the other hand, holes in the ozone layer certainly do exist, as do things like acid rain and smog. Global warming itself is pretty certain, although the exact effects are still up for debate.

[Erigena]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The trouble is there are many separate issues that tend to get conflated in these sort of discussions. Firstly, we're not damaging the actual planet in the slightest. The Earth is a damn great lump of rock and the worst humans, or any life for that matter, can do barely amounts to messing up its makeup. Even having flying rocks from space smack into it does little more than add the odd dent here and there.

Assuming you actually mean to talk about life on the planet rather than the planet itself, there are still a number of separate issues. Wiping out life itself really isn't an issue. The flying space rocks mentioned above did far better than we could manage, and even they never managed to kill everything. Life is pretty damn resilient.

However, while life in general is fairly tough, specific forms of life may not be. Killing everything may not be feasible, but killing a large proportion of certain kinds of life is. For examople, the K/T impact is famous for wiping out the dinosaurs, but left mammals and birds relatively untouched. Humans have the same sort of effect - we actively promote the welfare of some animals like cows, kittens and the like, we indirectly help others like rats, we purposely wipe others out, like tigers and rhinos, and we accidentally kill others by doing things like cutting down trees. We're not about to wipe the Earth clean of life, but we can do some pretty hefty readjustment of ecosystems. Whether you count that as damage or simply natural evolution is a matter of taste.

In the end, what you need to remember is that we look at things from a human perspective. Humans have evolved under certain conditions. Even more importantly, human civilisation has developed under very specific conditions, and modern civilisation even more so. The fact that climate and ecosystems change naturally is irrelevant, no matter how natural or unnatural it might be, we're not currently capable of dealing with a world with 60m higher sea levels and double the oxygen content in the atmosphere, for example. That may have been great for dinosaurs, but not for us.

The problem with global warming, pollution, fish stocks and what have you is not that the world is going to end, or even that the world is going to end for humans. The problem is that our current civilisation is based on having the sea stay put, having drinkable water in particular places, having food swimming around the place, and so on. If those things change, whether through moving or simply being used up, and whether due to entirely natural causes or through our own faults, we're going to have issues.

And the more people there are, the bigger those problems will be. A 1m change in sea level 2000 years ago may have got a few villages a bit damp. A 1m change in sea level now could mean millions of homes under water, simply because there are millions more homes than there used to be.

As for the specifics of how much we're damaging things compared to what is reported, that depends entirely on what reports you've been reading. Personally, I've never even heard of any "Great Pacific Garbage Patch", and I doubt it exists. On the other hand, holes in the ozone layer certainly do exist, as do things like acid rain and smog. Global warming itself is pretty certain, although the exact effects are still up for debate.

You made some very good points.

Regarding the news reports on global warming, I think the answer is often relative to the statistics they choose to highlight and what cause is trendy at the time. We're certainly damaging existing ecosystems and we should make efforts to limit our interference as much as possible. If we aren't sure of the extent to which we are at fault however, than it becomes difficult to know how to manage our involvement to protect it.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record because I have made my opinion known about media hype in several threads, but as many flavors as Ben & Jerry's has ice cream, the media has crises that fade in and out of the limelight.

To a lesser degree, protecting the environment has to do with etiquette. It doesn’t take much to pick up after yourself. I’m at the beach a lot and if I go two consecutive days, I’m likely to see the same trash.

As far as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, I would think if it were twice the size of Texas or France, more people would have noticed it.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Personally, I've never even heard of any "Great Pacific Garbage Patch", and I doubt it exists.

You surely know better than to argue personal incredulity. It is a scientifically established fact. The typical place to start.

Originally Posted by Erigena

As far as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, I would think if it were twice the size of Texas or France, more people would have noticed it.

You surely know better than to argue group incredulity. See the above link for a start.

[TragicMonkey]

From what I've read, anoxia in the oceans is in the long run far more devastating than a mere temperature increase. However, since we're getting both of them together, it seems moot to debate which is worse. I guess that's the bright side?

[not daSkeptic]

In the words of the late, great George Carlin, "The planet isn't going anywhere. We are."

[Springfork]

I grew up in the 50's here in rural Central Illinois. This place used to be really bad. There was trash on the sides of the roads, junk farms with rusting equipment everywhere. Farm animals and farm chemicals polluting the creeks. Animals like deer, otters, badgers, and birds like Great Blue Herons and many species of ducks and geese were non-existant. Hawks and eagles were extremely rare. Things are far different now. Junk farms are rare. The roadways are clean. Farmers plant trees and cover crops to reduce erosion. Farm chemicals are still a problem but much less now. Deer are everywhere, otters have been re-introduced from stock in Louisana and are doing well. We have ducks, geese, herons, and desirable songbirds that are sensitive to pollution like Bluebirds and Purple Martens. They're all back in numbers I never saw in the 50's and 60's. We now have so many hawks it has changed the habits of gamebirds like pheasants. We have cleaned up our mess here and I'm optimistic at the local level.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

From what I've read, anoxia in the oceans is in the long run far more devastating than a mere temperature increase. However, since we're getting both of them together, it seems moot to debate which is worse. I guess that's the bright side?

Anoxic oceans were a big component of the P-T extinction so that is something to worry about......if you're a large complex organism. How sure are we that AGW will induce anoxia? Was anoxia induced during the formation of the CAMP(Central Atlantic Magmatic Province)?

[MikeSun5]

I agree that we're not going to kill the planet per se, but we're definitely damaging way more than we have to. My problem with the situation is that media outlets seem to claim that without our immediate and direct assistance, the world will be destroyed within our lifetime. Satellite images of hurricanes are cut to from clips of jammed LA freeways, and then you're offered some "green" product that will save the planet. I want to know, says who?

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The problem ... is not that the world is going to end, or even that the world is going to end for humans. The problem is that our current civilisation is based on having the sea stay put, having drinkable water in particular places, having food swimming around the place, and so on. If those things change, whether through moving or simply being used up, and whether due to entirely natural causes or through our own faults, we're going to have issues.

That's a good point as well. We're so dependent on the way things are, that changing it would create "issues." Conversely, changing the way humans live is the only way to conserve these ecosystems we're damaging and species we're killing off. So it's a dilemma.
This sort of concern also seems to be limited to rich countries. I don't think a fisherman in Bangledesh trying to feed his family gives a crap about tossing trash into the sea, but Americans are freaking out.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Travis

Anoxic oceans were a big component of the P-T extinction so that is something to worry about......if you're a large complex organism. How sure are we that AGW will induce anoxia? Was anoxia induced during the formation of the CAMP(Central Atlantic Magmatic Province)?

I understood we're observing anoxic zones growing now, so it's not a purely theoretical concern.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I understood we're observing anoxic zones growing now, so it's not a purely theoretical concern.

Aren't anoxic zones limited to coastal waters? Do they affect the ocean at large?

(I'm sure I could look those answers up, I just choose not to.)

[King of the Americas]

Humans CAN alter the landscape & atmosphereic conditions, on a continental scale.

It was called the Dust Bowl.

And moreover, we are capable of fixing such mistakes.

When I hear Rush Limbaugh say that we aren't capable of disturbing the Earth's systems, I just want to slap him, and give him a history book.

[Erigena]

Originally Posted by SezMe

You surely know better than to argue personal incredulity. It is a scientifically established fact. The typical place to start.


You surely know better than to argue group incredulity. See the above link for a start.

I did a search on it, so I've read that, but the only image I found was a video of a group of people hoisting up some garbage from the area they indicated as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. They also showed a jar of dirty water, but I haven't seen any aerial photos of a floating mass of garbage twice the size of Texas. I don't deny there is probably a large collection of it, but I'm not convinced that it's as big as what has been suggested.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Erigena

I did a search on it, so I've read that, but the only image I found was a video of a group of people hoisting up some garbage from the area they indicated as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. They also showed a jar of dirty water, but I haven't seen any aerial photos of a floating mass of garbage twice the size of Texas. I don't deny there is probably a large collection of it, but I'm not convinced that it's as big as what has been suggested.

Sounds fishy to me. After more reading, there are apparently two giant garbage patches in the Pacific, and smaller patches in the "gyres" around the world's other oceans. They claim they plastic debris isn't stacked on the surface, but floating just barely under it. I'm still not convinced...
With all that plastic bleached by the sun and salt, as enormous as the area's supposed to be, you'd think that at least some discoloration in the water would be visible. Twice the size of Texas? Pilots would be pointing it out on flights from LA to Honolulu. People would have SEEN it.

[applecorped]

Who says it's our planet?

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Who says it's our planet?

We do.

[Cavemonster]

http://theoystersgarter.com/2007/10/...ic-trash-gyre/

Here's the most common explanation for why there are no pictures of the garbage patch. Essentially, it isn't an island of garbage, but an area thick with smaller particles of plastic beneath the surface. How even from on top of it, it looks like normal ocean, but when a net is dragged, it is full of plastic compared to what's normally in a such a net.

So we're not talking bout a literal island of garbage, just a very large patch of water with a lot of plastic particles in it, in fact, most likely 1 piece per several square feet of water. It's problematic, but it doesn't look a thing like a floating landfill.

As other people said, when we talk about killing the planet, it isn't an altruistic love for Gaia, what we're really and reasonably worried about is the health of those systems that sustain us humans. These plastic patches, grown huge in just a few decades, are extremely inhospitable to large fish, the kind we like to eat and are already overfishing and polluting out of existence.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

http://theoystersgarter.com/2007/10/...ic-trash-gyre/

Here's the most common explanation for why there are no pictures of the garbage patch. Essentially, it isn't an island of garbage, but an area thick with smaller particles of plastic beneath the surface. How even from on top of it, it looks like normal ocean, but when a net is dragged, it is full of plastic compared to what's normally in a such a net.

So we're not talking bout a literal island of garbage, just a very large patch of water with a lot of plastic particles in it, in fact, most likely 1 piece per several square feet of water. It's problematic, but it doesn't look a thing like a floating landfill.

The only problem with all of that is the huge variations in reports. Some (like your link) said it's the size of Texas with a piece of plastic every few feet, while some say twice the size of Texas and actually give the approximate weight of all the trash. How in the hell would you compute that?

Quote:

These plastic patches, grown huge in just a few decades, are extremely inhospitable to large fish, the kind we like to eat and are already overfishing and polluting out of existence.

Actually, sailors tend to avoid the gyres - where these garbage patches are supposed to be - because there's little current and little wind to move them if they get stuck. Not much fishing going on there, anyway... but that's besides the point.
I'm not denying there's garbage in the ocean. That picture of Hawaii is a good example. But all the pictures of this Great Pacific Garbage Patch are the same 3 pictures over and over again. Not very impressive or solid proof of some enormous "trash soup," IMO.

I think that environmentalists say these things to get reactions out of non-environmentalists. Their hearts are in the right place, but I wish they'd quit making stuff up.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

The only problem with all of that is the huge variations in reports. Some (like your link) said it's the size of Texas with a piece of plastic every few feet, while some say twice the size of Texas and actually give the approximate weight of all the trash. How in the hell would you compute that?


Actually, sailors tend to avoid the gyres - where these garbage patches are supposed to be - because there's little current and little wind to move them if they get stuck. Not much fishing going on there, anyway... but that's besides the point.
I'm not denying there's garbage in the ocean. That picture of Hawaii is a good example. But all the pictures of this Great Pacific Garbage Patch are the same 3 pictures over and over again. Not very impressive or solid proof of some enormous "trash soup," IMO.

I think that environmentalists say these things to get reactions out of non-environmentalists. Their hearts are in the right place, but I wish they'd quit making stuff up.

The article I linked was a couple years old for one thing, and in context was using "The size of texas" colloquially, not as an exact measurement.

Most official accounts are somewhat inexact, but do stick to the 2X texas figure. But let's say we can't know how large it is. What we do know-
1) It's meaningfully sizable compared to local land masses.
2) It's highly toxic and phyically dangerous to wildlife
3) It takes about ~20ish years for plastic to end up there.
4) Since we've only been producing so much plastic waste for less than 50 years, and we've been ramping up the amount as we go, we can expect it to continue to grow and continue to be a problem.

I'm also dubious of overstated panic inducing environmental claims, but I think regardless of the severity, the evidence is strong that there's a lot of plastic that is damaging major marine ecosystems.

Edit: As for the effect on fishing, fish travel, the plastic poisons small feeder fish and either they die and starve the larger fish who may eat them elsewhere, or they pass on the pollutants.

[Erigena]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Sounds fishy to me. After more reading, there are apparently two giant garbage patches in the Pacific, and smaller patches in the "gyres" around the world's other oceans. They claim they plastic debris isn't stacked on the surface, but floating just barely under it. I'm still not convinced...
With all that plastic bleached by the sun and salt, as enormous as the area's supposed to be, you'd think that at least some discoloration in the water would be visible. Twice the size of Texas? Pilots would be pointing it out on flights from LA to Honolulu. People would have SEEN it.

Fishy indeed. They could have been anywhere and found dirty water or a pile of garbage. I won't dispute that we're polluting the oceans and we ought to to make the effort to clean it up. I just don't agree with the assessment regarding the size of it and there seems to be some ambiguity in the reporting of it. There isn't a clear consensus among environmentalists except that it exists.

[RandFan]

Every time Jesus kills a puppy Gaia cries. Or something like that.

[skeptifem]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

I'm wondering exactly how much we're really damaging our planet through pollution and waste, as opposed to what the media tells us...
.....

I know full well that humans' habits of resource consumption and trash disposal (or lack thereof) are certainly not helping the situation, but I can't help but wonder how much of that is inflated by the media and others as a scare tactic?

The issue of how the media portrays the issue, or how much actual damage occurs to the planet is kindof secondary for me. There is a lot of undeniable evidence that american style living has real measurable consequences for other PEOPLE in the world, and it is pretty inexcusable. The outsourcing of factory jobs (to places like china and indonesia) are good examples, if we paid people who did those jobs a living wage we could not reasonably expect to live the way that we do now. or at least the majority of americans could not afford to. Another problem is that minor climate change issues that are happening now are effecting poorer nations, it isn't a 'what if' problem for the seas to rise if you live on a small island.

You could also take the practical position that if climate change is not a big deal and we work towards reducing our environmental impact we have lost nothing, but if climate change is a big deal and we don't reduce our consumption we lose a lot.

[The_Animus]

As others have said the planet and likely some forms of life will continue to survive regardless of what we do. If we do totally mess up the planet with pollution I'd just guess there will be a much smaller variety of life.

How much damage is being done is debatable and hard to get an accurate idea on a planetary scale.

How much damage is being done now shouldn't affect the green and sustainable movement that is starting to take effect. Regardless of whether the damage right now is minimal or not, in the future with rising population and third world industrial development the rate of consumption is going to exceed what our planet can handle.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Erigena

I just don't agree with the assessment regarding the size of it and there seems to be some ambiguity in the reporting of it. There isn't a clear consensus among environmentalists except that it exists.

Environmentalists as a group are anyone who wants to don that label. Consensus among them reflects as much on the reality of the situation as consensus among forum members reflects the position of the JREF.

The experts are consistent in reporting the size as between 1.1 and 1.4 million square kilometers, or twice the size of either texas or france. Non expert sources will colloquially say "the size of Texas" but that's equivalent to non experts in evolution saying colloquially "We evolved from monkeys"

[Ron_Tomkins]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Gangularis]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Damnit!! I was just about to post that!!

[Delvo]

The most dire types of environmental and human-population-support damage we're doing are the ones that get the least attention. (soil erosion, soil cation depletion, well-water depletion)

[King of the Americas]

I spoke to a Navyman once, who claimed that all of the garbage they created on board, was compacted, plastic wrapped, and set adrift near land based artilary ranges to be used as naval targets, "...because they could take a lot of sink".

I am not suggesting that this is 'the' cause for this sea-plastic the size of Texas, but rather I think it is important to understand that many people have been using the ocean as a dumping ground for a long time. It is not surprising int he least that there 'could' be a large amount of plastic debris accumulating in a singular spot in the ocean somewhere...

The bright point is that if it is being localized by currents or whathaveyou, then clean up could be easier, right?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Robster, FCD

Well, with as many species as are threatened, endangered or recently extinct, we are doing damage.

We won't kill the earth though. Make it uninhabitable for modern human society, possibly.

All evidence so far points to modern capitalism being able to supply more and more food and nutrition for more and more people. The only want, aside from occasional disasters, comes in countries that are decidedly not free and capitalist.

The prediction is simple and has been found correct time and again: Barring government intervention (a key point), economic measures increase over time. The Ultimate Resource II

So pick what you want to measure, food per acre, calories or nutrition available per person, cost of a day's food per person, longevity, clothing, price of goods, and so on, they're always improving*.





So, no. The only way the Earth will become uninhabitable for modern society will be if we succumb to scare tactics and allow the government to institute controls over production.

And yes, that implies that dirty environment + free capitalism still increases those factors faster than "clean" environment + great strictures on production.

And that makes people angry to think that, the way an atheist makes a Christian angry by saying, well, how can God sit there while children are raped to death?











* With a minimum granularity of 10 years, and ideally somewhat more.

[Travis]

What I worry about is us exhausting our strategic granite reserves. If that goes then the strategic Lego reserve might be next.

[GreyICE]

MikeSun5 is creating a strawman here. He personally refers to, multiple times, sources that say the planet will be destroyed within a generation. He has linked to none of them. He has cited none of them. He has asked people to defend something that he has no proof exists.

He can't link to these sources, because anything he finds will be significantly more intelligent than he is painting it. Thus, he is doomed to carry around this strawman, or admit it's a man of straw.

He has been proven wrong on any particulars he has cited.

- The Great Pacific Garbage Patch exists.
- Global Warming exists, and is occurring at a significant pace
- Mass extinctions are possible
- Enabling the deaths of millions of people through negligence is possible

MikeSun5 sees nothing to worry about because a fisherman in Bangladesh sees nothing to worry about. The same fisherman also probably thinks that the lucky yellow rock he's carrying around is a gift from the gods.

Why is he an idiot when he's carting around uranium, but some super-genius when he doesn't care about the environment? He's a goddamn fisherman.

Basic facts:
- Environmental change can kill millions of people
- Environmental change can damage the farming we rely on for food
- Mass extinctions have been caused by things like overfishing (see: Bangladesh fishermen)
- Pollution causes dozens of nasty health effects, including birth defects, cancer, brain damage, poisoning, long-term nerve damage, and death
- Your ignorance is killing people