If humanity focused... ?

[timebomb26]

Also not so sure about the "right to live on this planet". On a closed biosphere, you'll often see one species kill off (intentionally or not) another, especially if they compete for the same resources. Nobody has a "right" to exist. You fight to exist, or die trying. Law of the jungle i'm afraid, no fluffy bunny stuff will save you when you're about to starve.

I see your reference to other species killing each other and the relation to the human race, but are we the same as other species? People seem to want to call us the superior species when it suits them. Animals fight for the right to survive, and on a very basic level, so do we. But in many ways we have transcended this, and become self aware of our own actions. If an animal kills another it is for survival. It doesn't think about the impact on the environment, where as we know what we're doing, yet we continue to do so.

 

[timebomb26]

Also listen to myself. Not really its just reality. If we wanted to there's few species we actually need at all. I'm not saying how I think we should handle ourselfs, just that in reality we have goto a stage where we don't need these massive Eco systems to survive.

If we continue to live on this planet we do need the eco systems.

 

[Glaucus]

We are superior in terms of technology and adaptability.

It's not people using it as and when suits. It's just not an all empncompassing term.

If we continue to live on this planet we do need the eco systems.

We don't.
Taking it to the extreme we can use renewable energies and have massive algae factories for food. No Eco system would be required for that.

 

[timebomb26]

We are superior in terms of technology and adaptability. It's not people using it as and when suits. It's just not an all empncompassing term.

We don't. Taking it to the extreme we can use renewable energies and have massive algae factories for food. No Eco system would be required for that.

But if we are superior to other species then people can't use animal behaviour as an excuse for our own actions.

If we destroy the eco systems we drastically change the climate of this planet, and then we'll be in trouble.

 

[sigma]

We are superior in terms of technology and adaptability.

It's not people using it as and when suits. It's just not an all empncompassing term.


We don't.
Taking it to the extreme we can use renewable energies and have massive algae factories for food. No Eco system would be required for that.

Why would we want to settle for the very basics? We try to separate ourselves from everything in the universe when actually we're all made of the same stuff, we have no more rights to anything than anyone or anything else.

Just because I can go out and shoot a cat with a gun it doesn't mean I should, nor should I accept the fact that people do so.

 

[Glaucus]

Why would we want to settle for the very basics? .

We wouldn't and that's not what I have said at all. Just countering the doomsayers saying we are doomed. When we are not, just pointing out even if we ignore the fact weare polluting less in many areas and Eco systems are being saved/being restablished. Then we can still survive in the most extreme ways.

If we destroy the eco systems we drastically change the climate of this planet, and then we'll be in trouble.

The ecosystem and climate changes drastically on its own. The fact we speed it up means little. We have to adapt or learn to controll it. Even without our intervention, the earth changes drastically. Just look at the cycle of ice ages, hot periods and going back further massive volcanic activaty.

 

[Fran]

If we could do away with religion, the world would advance at a better rate, we'd all get along better, be more collective and become more of one. The poorer economies, would get wealthier, have less children, bring down the population to managable levels.

Really ?
I don't see religion stopping scientific progress in any significant way, human cloning perhaps ?
We all get along fine I think, the last war fought on religious grounds was some time ago and I don't remember Dirty Dog citing religion as a cause for friction.
Collectivisism, well churches are pretty good at organising global scale projects, and so are independent charities, it's just governments that suck.
"More of one" Like the Chinese or Israel ? I don't think religion is material.
I did notice that China has a population problem, perhaps if they were all Methodists that would sort that problem for sure, or maybe not.

As belief in this country only runs at a few percent there should be no reason why we shouldn't outstrip the more religious USA by next weekend at the latest.
Marvellous.



I'm pretty sure any Muslim country on the planet will contribute squat to human advancement for the next 50 years at least, even if they did abandon their beliefs. Lots of civil wars yes, advancement, doubtful.

 

[timebomb26]

The ecosystem and climate changes drastically on its own. The fact we speed it up means little. We have to adapt or learn to controll it. Even without our intervention, the earth changes drastically. Just look at the cycle of ice ages, hot periods and going back further massive volcanic activaty.

Yes the world has gone through climate cycles but our actions are damaging areas of the planet now, such as the ocean. If we know there are other ways to produce energy why do we continue? The "Oh it doesn't matter if we mess everything up, we'll find something else" attitude just isn't good enough.

 

[Glaucus]

If we know there are other ways to produce energy why do we continue?

we are changing, it doesn't happen over night. It takes time for technology to progress and price to come down. It also takes time to ramp up production and install.

Do we continue the oh it doesn't matter?
Ii think you need to go look at UK and EU laws if you think that and see what actual laws there are for pollution and what is coming into force.

why not start with the 2020 and 2050 EU energy roadmaps.Then you can have a look at restrictions on air quality, river quality, recycling laws which affect production of items as well as final recycling and the rest of the other laws. which encompass many areas.

 

[Calabi]

I think we evolved in cooperation, and now certain orthodoxy idealogies has moved us away from that. It will probably be bad in the short term. Whether that destruction will destroy the future in the long is the question.

Its certain technology will not save us from any problems, we are not investing enough in the right places. Which is to say we think we know where the great discoveries are going to come from and focus on them or find the most immediately profitable.

Even so most of the problems we have are not solved by science, but by action and will, even the scientists have despaired of the lack of political will to tackle any of the problems facing us.

Theres a lot of pushing the problems down the road. Population limits, Nuclear waste(still havent even approached this in fifty years).

I think we are now hitting the limits of anarchistic capitalism, this might save us from hitting real resource limits, if there is real change and real action to change things, like the political structure. So we can start acting to really solve these problems like poverty, infrastructure.

Anything can be solved in our society, there's just no will from anyone in power to do so.

 

[timebomb26]

As I've said before I know things are changing, and that this takes time. But there is still 100% more effort and funding that could be put in, that isn't.

 

[fendi]

Does anyone have the mega city link on the ants?

 

[Glaucus]

As I've said before I know things are changing, and that this takes time. But there is still 100% more effort and funding that could be put in, that isn't.

We can always invest more, that doesn't detract from things are changing and changing in a resonable time frame. That we aren't totally doomed.

 

[frosty03]

I see your reference to other species killing each other and the relation to the human race, but are we the same as other species? People seem to want to call us the superior species when it suits them. Animals fight for the right to survive, and on a very basic level, so do we. But in many ways we have transcended this, and become self aware of our own actions. If an animal kills another it is for survival. It doesn't think about the impact on the environment, where as we know what we're doing, yet we continue to do so.

I dont think we will "transcend" this. We will continue to wipe out any species who happens to be "in the way" of our existence. Habitat destruction for one. Only a finite amount of space on this planet. If a species requires a lot of wilderness, it will have no hope, especially in high population areas. It either adapts or dies.

What of the other side? If a rare protected animal suddenly becomes much more useful to us, we will breed it in huge numbers.

Fact is, we dont know what the long term effect will be. But you cant then extrapolate it and say what we're doing is bad, since extinction is "bad". Species become extinct all the time, new ones are created. We are just another animal in the web. If we kill off enough species that eventually it causes us to become extinct(for whatever reason), then another dominant life form will emerge. Maybe the "preservation of other species" is a survival trait in itself.

 

[PermaBanned]

 

[Nerusy]

humans don't suck, you suck.

 

[timebomb26]

I dont think we will "transcend" this. We will continue to wipe out any species who happens to be "in the way" of our existence. Habitat destruction for one. Only a finite amount of space on this planet. If a species requires a lot of wilderness, it will have no hope, especially in high population areas. It either adapts or dies.

What of the other side? If a rare protected animal suddenly becomes much more useful to us, we will breed it in huge numbers.

Fact is, we dont know what the long term effect will be. But you cant then extrapolate it and say what we're doing is bad, since extinction is "bad". Species become extinct all the time, new ones are created. We are just another animal in the web. If we kill off enough species that eventually it causes us to become extinct(for whatever reason), then another dominant life form will emerge. Maybe the "preservation of other species" is a survival trait in itself.

You misunderstand. I meant we have moved beyond killing other species for survival. Now we just do it for other reasons.