As long as its not localised to where you live though? Would you consent to a fracking site within ½ a mile from your home?
Deep sea mining
- Thread starter potatolord
- Start date
As long as its not localised to where you live though? Would you consent to a fracking site within ½ a mile from your home?
I know (hope) you aren't a geologist so ill let this slide.
Its also instinctual.
Usually selfishness in nature is a tool to promote your genes being successfully transfered
But add tools/tech etc to the mix and you get self destruction.
This is just another example of why our way of life is doomed. Humans won't change until it's too late. The generations that get left with the fallout will blame the prior ones rightfully so.
Until these massive changes happen we won't change. Just have to look at how bad covid got until it was taken seriously.
The UK has pretty much destroyed its nature, biodiversity loss is among the highest in the world. People like to point at Asia but they really should be looking at home first. For someone to claim our past endeavors have had no impact on nature or its 'recovered' its just so demonstrably false its quite astonishing.,When you try and incorrectly frame it that way, then sure, we can see your viewpoint.
Wen look at what's actually happening though, then the negative effects are neither small nor localised
What are the extent and causes of biodiversity loss? - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment
Today, biodiversity is in a state of crisis. This Explainer lists the main drivers of biodiversity loss and the impacts they are having.www.lse.ac.uk
I agree in part.
I totally accept I'm a hypocrite. Almost everyone is.
Its like animal testing. When push comes to shove it would take a very special person to decline a life saving medicine because it was tested on animals.
And many invest in megacorps, bitcoin, take long haul flights etc etc.
That's not too say we shouldn't push for better. But almost everyone is guilty
Yeah UK is a waste land. And farmers are even kicking up a stink over 10pc farmland for nature here
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
Yes. I see no issue with it.
People don't like it of course (understandable), but from a technical perspective the impact is low. Humans have been dumping their poo in water courses for thousands of years. Its natural waste and degrades naturally.
True, it might do those things. But the likelihood of something catastrophic on a planetary level is absolutely tiny, on a par with the likelihood of natural disasters. Do you really think that us scraping a few tens of meters of silt off the ocean floor is going to materially pollute the oceans? We could hit a gas/oil pocket or something, but we drill for gas & oil now so what's the difference?
Localised effects, certainly possible, even expected. But do those have any significant impact, probably not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
I completely agree the UK is different from how it would have been in its 'natural' state*. But so what? Ultimately what is the impact of this? Nothing. The 'environment' is still in balance, its just a different balance. Species still exist and thrive, they are just different species from before.
We aren't going to turn our planet into a desolate nothingness through our actions no matter how hard we try.
* What even is 'natural'? Change happens all the time even in nature. Mountains grow, climate changes, rivers and the sea erode the land. Species die out and others replace them - with or without humans being involved. What people seem to object to is humans changing nature, why? Why is it ok for beavers to change nature, but not humans? Like I said earlier, destruction of one environment simply creates another, different, environment.
Any idea what caused the drop from 80s to 90s?Given how comprehensively we've already stuffed the oceans up, does it really matter?
I saw this graph today:
It's over kids; the environment lost. We may as well live it up while we can.
That's just the measurements at one point, rather than global levels so I don't think that there is a real drop there, just noise in the signal. There are large climatic effects in the data (from El Niño and the such) which drive the big year to year fluctuations, I think they just happen to have balanced out between those two decades in a way that dropped the average. Or it could be linked to the decline/fall of the Soviet Union, I suppose? I don't know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
There is one whopping assumption underpinning any analysis like this. And that is that increasing CO2 is 'bad'. Define 'bad'.Given how comprehensively we've already stuffed the oceans up, does it really matter?
I saw this graph today:
It's over kids; the environment lost. We may as well live it up while we can.
It might be bad for humans long term. But for the planet? Will we eventually turn into Venus? Maybe but that will be billions of years into the future. Maybe not. Maybe it would have happened anyway.
What about short/medium term? Sure, changes in CO2 levels cause climate change and some areas of the planet will change materially. That could affect human habitation or impact on certain species. But who is to say whether that is 'bad'? An assessment of 'bad' requires people to form opinions about change and why one configuration of the planet is better or worse than any other. What if a new species was to thrive under these new conditions? Its not 'bad' for them.
I find it funny actually that the defenders of climate change do so because of human preservation. Fundamentally a selfish reason! How is it any different from the selfish reasons that are driving us to destroy the planet or use its resources? Its just group A has one set of selfish reasons and group B has a different set.
Last edited:
Does not the increase in CO2 mean more plants and plants thriving, which means more oxygen and therefore more life...
Well that's the thing isn't it.
People should(you'd think) want the best for their kids. But very few will action it.
As to the planet. Yes it'll survive.
Short of mass nuclear war we will kill ourselves off long before we do irreversible damage.
The planet will recover.
I do tend to agree, they say it’s to save the planet, but it’s actually to save humanity (read: prolong it). If we’re gone, the world will still exist, if we’re gone due to climate change (man-made or otherwise), the flora and fauna that come after will likely be alien to what we know. But it will keep going.
That said I understand both sides, humanity wanting to preserve humanity is entirely natural, as well, people doing what is best for them and not for future generations is also natural.
It’s no wonder religion exists. If there was a big reset, religions would form again. Our intelligence is also what makes us so arrogant that we have a complete anthropocentric view of the universe. Everything is about us and what we do. We’re so special that a supernatural entity must have created us.
Even if you’re not religious, plenty of environmentalist atheists see us as ‘special’ and ‘custodians’ of the earth, it’s remarkably similar to what God supposedly planned for humans.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
Maybe because deep down most people know it doesn't really matter.
Your kids are important to you, and your grandkids, but their kids after that, and after that? Does anyone really care about their offspring in 300 + years time? Or 1000 years time? 10000 years time?
Objectively speaking, what does it matter if humans exist in 1 million years or not. There (probably) isn't some great cosmic impact that we will achieve as a species.
Im all for having a clean and pleasurable planet now, sure. I don't want to see things destroyed in front of my eyes the same as everyone else. But pretending it matters, is what bugs me.
Tell that to the people mining cheese on the moon.
And has done many times without human intervention.