Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
Deep sea mining
- Thread starter potatolord
- Start date
The cynic in me says that this whole push is purely for profit. People believed everything that was put out by oil companies all the way through the 20th century, they would put down the naysayers as crazy etc. They had researchers, scientists and engineers, they invented leaded fuel, cfcs, etc. Turns out they withheld information, lied etc. all for profit. Why does anyone think this time it’s any different?
The green industry is the next big global ‘gold rush’.
Last edited:
But this thought process leads to
"nothing matters, may as well just jump off a bridge now".
Because really. It doesn't.
But seeing as we're here, and most people do seem to care about their kids, and most people do want to survive.. Makes sense we shouldnt be wrecking the world?
And it probably isn't going to be 5 generations down the line. It will be kids and grandkids that are affected
The clue is in the word loss, its not just different stuff taking its place. If you dont understand biodiversity and why it matters a lot then a quick google will help you.
As for turning our planet into a desolate nothingness, who said that? The only one arguing for that seems to be you because everything will just recover in a few years regardless.
And the last line, yes change happens all the time but in nature it is usually much slower than it currently is.
Yes facility maintenance man tell us your scientific opinion or at least hastily Google something!
(This doesn't mean I don't also have reservations but it's extremely condescending for a non professional to talk to someone like that).
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
I feel its a bit different. Immediate self preservation is something we're programmed to do, same as mating. But long term self preservation is not something we're programmed to do genetically, its a product of our ability to think about the future, something other species (to our knowledge) can't do.
Personally I don't think we are wrecking the world. No more so than anything else anyway.
Changing the world, yes. But I see that as inevitable, every species changes their natural environment. The environment finds a balance, as when resources run out that species will die off. Same thing will happen to us eventually. I don't see that as a bad thing really, its just nature. Sure it might not be nice being the ones impacted, and as humans we'd be aware of being impacted in ways other animals wouldn't be. But I don't think that changes the fundamental rationale that we exist as part of an ecosystem and fundamentally we're just animals. If we find a way to survive then great, if not then ok too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
There is always loss of habitat, even before humans came along. So it might be slower yes, I don't see why that matters. Ice ages killed off the woolly mamouth. An asteroid (probably) killed off the dinosaurs. We're lucky to be here in the first place.
The environment is, currently, something that has us in it. The pace of change is the pace of change that results from our existence and level of development. Sure we can argue about our impact and make choices on that, but we exist as an ecosystem. To imply that is not a 'natural' state is wrong. There is no higher being saying what the pace of change in nature should or should not be. Who is to say a bunch of aliens won't come along next week and change things even faster than us and not give one iota about it.
Last edited:
Engineering & Technical Services Manager for the Natural History Museum*
lol
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
For a career that is enabled by things changing (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse) in the past, its strange you are so against things changing in the natural environment now.
Weird how they don't do that showing all the dead birds from wind farms.
Because I am actually interested in this stuff and can very clearly see which way our planet is heading. The planet isn't evolving, it's being destroyed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
You think the planet is being destroyed?
Or just our habitats/species?
What does the planet look like to you, if we continue on this path, in 500 years time? Interested to see what your vision is of this.
In your opinion that is, which is going against what the vast of majority of scientists who study this stuff think. I know who i'll believe.
Straight out the Putin playbook that one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,352
- Location
- Birmingham
Im not arguing that things aren't changing, which is what the scientists are studying. Im taking exception to comments that this isn't natural. We are part of nature so its natural by default. We're not some add on species that should be seen as independent of nature, we're part of it.
Yes if you take humans out of the equation completely and try to compare the world with and without, then of course its different.
Last edited:
