H, you can't compare the damage to environment made by the other living beings with ours. in nature it's perfectly normal if a lot of species disappear, so a major climate change won't be a problem because no natural disaster can annihilate every form of life. but we have to preserve our species and it's much harder.
I'mma just saying I think getting through to our next evolution and increasing moral / ethical awareness should be our goals, apart from that I don't see how anything could benefit us nearly as much.
Preservation is something we want, of course, but I'm not going to take it too hard if I die because it's become to warm, will things adapt? I don't know - life going extinct wouldn't be a terrible thing mind you, there's not too much reason for it to be so highly regarded.
No, I am not saying the cost of a life is small, I am saying that if it is unavoidable then please realize that life (at least in my head) shouldn't be taken as the highest goal. Especially since so many people who do don't make it a great life anyway.
Simply put - I'm gonna die, I wanna live as long as I can (nicely), but I don't wanna go through extreme (or unethical) methods to live. If it's going the way it is now I really wouldn't have to do so and considering I've never been put in the situation I guess I can't really say that. But still, that's my argument and it hasn't got the best ground - even then, morality never does
The 1500% thing, could you quote it? I've never seen it.
No, actually I can't. That information can't exactly be used as a hard-point argument but I've seen it from scientific research, I apologize for being unable to provide sources although in their wording (mostly): 186 billion units of pollution. 90 Billion - surface life. 90 Billion - underwater life. 6 Billion - Us.
I just made it 1500% more, easier to put into scale.
So you're not making any sense. It's better to leave the tree there.
Alright, I'm not gonna push forth that argument any further since mine is based on numbers and yours is much more indepth (plus mine had no solid ground xD ). Nicely done
In the same way, I feel like we can count on human ingenuity to solve our pressing problems -- but only if we work to keep them going in the meantime.
Chances are only when we've screwed around with it enough people will "wise up" and start working towards a solution. Nothing's better to a human than survival + moral correctness at the same time.
2nd best? Survival. Third? Nope, it's not morality. :<
From personal experience, anyway.
Oh and of course influence from MOVIES lol XD I don't think survival is something people have to deal with that often (on a serious level).
186 billion units of pollution. 90 Billion - surface life. 90 Billion - underwater life. 6 Billion - Us.
Could I see proof for this? It doesn't look right, because you exclude the billions of Archaea living within the earth's core and mantle. I'm sure that belongs somewhere, and I'm almost positive that there is at least twice the underwater life than the surface life.
YES!!!!!!! the environment is very important for not only people but for animals as well. Water is an environment and it is becoming a very hard thing to get (I am talking about fresh water). The rainforest is being cut down at a extremely fast rate and that forest supports a lot of wildlife such as monkeys, lizards, insects, and a lot of other different critters.
tiger25691, I think I'd like you know that many people know that. It's not exactly what the name of this thread is as a discussion, it's based on some other things as well.
YES!!!!!!! the environment is very important for not only people but for animals as well. Water is an environment and it is becoming a very hard thing to get (I am talking about fresh water). The rainforest is being cut down at a extremely fast rate and that forest supports a lot of wildlife such as monkeys, lizards, insects, and a lot of other different critters.
Yeah, but, is it something we should spend so,much effort on? I mean we have a lot of big issues what makes the enviroment more important than the others
ironically, it's human who are destroying the earth, and it's also humans who are trying to redo things. environment destruction is: -inimportant to those who just want to do enjoy sucking all the wealth out of the Earth and then die, while not bothering the fate of future generations -important to those who want their children to enjoy the serenity of the world as much as they themselves do.
just my own opinion: people who just want to leave the Earth after putting an end to it is a self-oriented fools who after having fun raping someone, leave her bearing utmost pain while go and look some other girl.
One thing about War. It's usually involved with someone that has more stuff against someone that hasn't. That is environment related, the amount of raw materials and labor supply to drive an economy that eventually leads to educational thought. You think we'd be here if we didn't have all of the Coal we've mined for centuries?
Second thing about War, many times, people fight over land. Nobody on earth will ever fight for a place like Southern Saudi Arabia when it's oil runs out, Nobody will want our pointless Arizona Desert, and of all places, Egypt is most likely to attack Sudan for sucking water out of the Nile than Israel.
market crash,
Houses lose a lot of equity when environmental damage occurs to areas around them, http://yosemite1.epa.gov/EE/Epa/eed.nsf/f8e599571c2c1c1b852575a6006ab35d/9b0f54bdcb5b70dc852575a7005e9355!OpenDocument
Also, Market Crash is also related to energy prices rising [like fuel] -- Sustainable energy sounds nice, like that Nissan Leaf, with a $3 electricity charge up versus a 65$ oil tank.
I could give more examples for market, but I'll let it go.
Sorry, lol I meant they are going up and there can be a war without it being about resources...WWII.. and market crash wasn't solely because of the houses or oil companies
