Though yes, at the moment it is a necessity, things considered "natural" can all be replaced within a hundred years, so unless we attempt genocide on every species then we will be fine by the time the "nature" was destroyed. I feel like natural things are mostly a tool to earn money at the moment, for many "green" products cost more, are less effective, and do little in the means of helping the "environment". People should stop worrying about problems that are not problems that are not problems and focus on things that matter. Money being spent to research said "green" attempts should be redirected to robotics, as robotics can mimic and even improve upon "natural" things. So, why are so many people obsessed with "natural, Nature, green" things? (I would have to guise propaganda. PS, please keep flaming to a minimum since someone is probably going to flame me...)
I watched it up too the 2:50 mark, then is strayed too far away from the actual book. But yes, capitalism can take over like that, we have Unions though.
unions protect humans not nature government regulation does that witch we don't have a lot of. The main differences are the 2 min songs you can skip.
Why should companies not exploit it? If it can be replaced, then it actually should be used. Though human are animals, in most people's minds they are not "nature", witch is why I have been using the quotes around "nature", as it is used as a relative term.
A lot of things cannot be replaced something can be replaced but it takes a very long time like oil, trees, and unpolluted water witch of right now is anything but the gulf of Mexico.
I agree with
Humans who would see the world destroyed for the sake of progress are not human.
disagree with
Humans who prefer to indirectly kill others of their own species are not human.
-Population control -survival of the fittest -our population is too bid to sustain as it is now
Ya know, we do live on planet Earth. We do exist in a land of nature, and if we don't preserve it, our planet may become inhabitable, and the human population would be ultimately screwed.
In terms of ecology, preservation of the environment may not be important so as to make our biosphere look 'good and green', but to maintain necessary ecological processes that were disturbed by human activities, and may irrevocably harm our planet and thus ourselves in the long run.
As I have said those processes can be mimicked and improved my machines.
Nature is way more advanced than we are.
Not in a hundred years.
A lot of things cannot be replaced something can be replaced but it takes a very long time like oil, trees, and unpolluted water witch of right now is anything but the gulf of Mexico.
Oil should be able to be created out of either organic matter or chemicals, we just need to find the correct atmosphere for making oil and mimic it as was done with diamonds. Trees can, even currently, be speed with growth mixtures and human could make artificial trees from chemicals in the future, within a hundred years.
Humans who would see the world destroyed for the sake of progress are not human
.
I am thinking more along the lines of improved rather than destroyed.
And at this point I would like to point out that the survival of the fittest rule applies here, as human need land, food, and would to survive. If we even destroyed everything considered "natural" Then we could improve it with machines. I am not saying we should destroy everything natural, only that we should focus our energies and money on something that is not only having little effect and is pointless.
And at this point I would like to point out that the survival of the fittest rule applies here, as human need land, food, and would to survive. If we even destroyed everything considered "natural" Then we could improve it with machines. I am not saying we should destroy everything natural, only that we should focus our energies and money on something that is not only having little effect and is pointless.
You cannot replace many things that you propose to destroy. What is wrong with balance instead of willful destruction? Humans are the only animal who feel the need to destroy their envrionment to deem it livable; everything else finds balance.
You cannot replace many things that you propose to destroy. What is wrong with balance instead of willful destruction? Humans are the only animal who feel the need to destroy their envrionment to deem it livable; everything else finds balance.
We are the only ones who can. And, once more, I am not aiming for tree genocide, I just want our money spent were it should be spent, such as on robotics.
And care to name one thing we couldn't possibly replace?
Let's propose a senario. One hundred years from now a nuclear war begins and destroys much of the planet; all computers are gone, all advance technology is gone, all robots are gone. The fallout has serious ramifications for all life but, as it has in the past, nature will move on; but only if it was there previously. Any artificial life will quickly die off due to lack of genetic variety and all other artificial technology will either be destroyed or rendered worthless.
I ask you what's more important now. Not that this will happen but there is a possibilty; we can not create artificial ecosystems so we cannot destroy the ones we have now.
a fictional book: Silent Spring by Rachel Carson demonized DDT and inspired an anti-DDT (used to rid malaria) movement claiming it kills birds. It in-fact does not kill birds and doesn't cause cancer (another claim).
While I do agree that Rachel Carson is overly emotional and not exactly the most scientific person, DDT is dangerous.
Recent data shows that women who were exposed to DDT before they reached puberty are five times more likely to develop breast cancer. link.
ecosystems are never artificial, they're simply moved. If such a thing were to happen odds are that most if not all life on the planet would be wiped out by the extreme conditions. Lack of food, would cause riots killing even more.
@OP A lot of green products are actually more effective than their counterparts, it depends on where you're looking. As for price currently green products are a relatively new market, prices will be higher because they A cost more to make and B there is very little competition once more companies get involved prices wars will drop by the price by a considerable percentage. Next while species die out naturally everyday deforestation and pollution, i.e. Amazon and oil spill, cause quite literally a genocide of the creatures living within these environments. As the superior species on this planet, is not considered our duty to look after it? Of course there's propaganda and granted Gore screwed us all with his little study which was completely wrong. But cutting back on the damage we do to the environment isn't going to hurt us any, in fact it will probably improve our lives by a great deal.
Any artificial life will quickly die off due to lack of genetic variety and all other artificial technology will either be destroyed or rendered worthless.
The minute humans try to control or modify something it becomes artificial. Its course without humans is altered. Earth is artificial.
One hundred years from now a nuclear war begins and destroys much of the planet;
I did think of how dependent humans are on technology when I thought of the aquaducts for Rome. We have tap water so confusing to get, if there was a break down, only a specialist could fix it. Possibly bad.
