Enviromentalism thread

Odin · February 23, 2003, 18:13

The biosphere is currently going through the 6th great mass extinction and the blood is on our hands. 50% percent of all species may perish in the next 100 years if we do not act. where ever humanity settles, life disapears. half of hawaii's bird species have went extinct when polynesians reached the islands 1000 years ago. The Carolina Parakeet, once common all over the eastern US, went extinct less than a century ago. Lions and cheetahs once thrived around the mediterranian, are now gone, killed by warriors and slaves in gladiatorial fighting, and further decimated by medivial people, killing them as satanic demons.

In recent years huge tracts of jungle has been converted in to farmland, fragmenting the rainforest into areas too small to support a stable ecosystem. Greedy government officials introduced Nile Perch to Lake Victoria as a game fish, decimating the local cichlid fish. Many species are so small in population that they are doomed to extinction from interbreeding no matter what we do. How do we stop this? I want the opinions of all the enviromentalists and ecologists of 'Poly to give their ideas to this problem.

MRT144 · February 23, 2003, 18:16

enviromentalism

David Floyd · February 23, 2003, 18:19

Lot's of species are dying out, in exchange for a higher standard of living for humans? Good trade

MRT144 · February 23, 2003, 18:25

exactly my thinking david. but it also comes from my distrust of "enviromental groups" that do nothing more than stamp themselves on the ass as experts and cost the government and people of the nation millions of dollars.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2003, 18:28

Saving the environment = good

If you wanna raise the standard of living, try distributing the wealth more evenly.
A rising tide doesnt float all boats.

David Floyd · February 23, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

If you wanna raise the standard of living, try distributing the wealth more evenly.

Sorry, stealing is straight out. It's immoral, and a violation of individual rights.

Animals aren't human, though, and as such don't have rights.

Odin · February 23, 2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Lot's of species are dying out, in exchange for a higher standard of living for humans? Good trade

We are not more important than other organisms you anthropocentric jerk!

I'll Greenpeace to bomb your house.

I least we enviromentalists have the ethics to oppose you greedy capitalist pigs.

Resistance is futile, you shall beg for mercy when I tell Greenpeace "Eco-terrorists" to burn your house and cover it with a garden.

David Floyd · February 23, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

We are not more important than other organisms you anthropocentric jerk!

Oh really? Then I assume that you are a vegan. No, strike that, I assume that you don't eat animal OR plant products, because plants are living organisms too, and you wouldn't want to discriminate

Quote:

I'll Greenpeace to bomb your house.

Greenpeace? Aren't those the guys who got their boat sunk by the FRENCH? Yeah, I'm worried

Skanky Burns · February 23, 2003, 18:37

It was more of a "boating accident" than a deliberate sinking...

David Floyd · February 23, 2003, 18:39

Oh, so Greenpeace was incompetent enough to not only let the French sink their ship, but also to let the French play it off as an accident? Either the French got better or Greenpeace is just incompetent, and let's just say I have very little confidence in the French

Skanky Burns · February 23, 2003, 18:39

Odin · February 23, 2003, 18:44

Get out DF, we want a civilized, scientific discussion, not your stereotypical, conservative BS!

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL (DF) PEOPLE!!!

Dauphin · February 23, 2003, 18:45

I have no problem with species going extinct. Species die all the time, new ones evolve to take their place. As said in the first post this is not the first, and won't be the last time it happens.

If the species or ecosystem in question is important I will pay more attention.

David Floyd · February 23, 2003, 18:47

Odin,

Quote:

Get out DF, we want a civilized, scientific discussion, not your stereotypical, conservative BS

Interesting, seeing as how one of your previous posts was as follows:

Quote:

We are not more important than other organisms you anthropocentric jerk! I'll Greenpeace to bomb your house. I least we enviromentalists have the ethics to oppose you greedy capitalist pigs.

Resistance is futile, you shall beg for mercy when I tell Greenpeace "Eco-terrorists" to burn your house and cover it with a garden.

I rest my case.

MRT144 · February 23, 2003, 18:52

wouldnt burning the house cause a large amoutn of pollutants to be released into the air? im talking about things like insulation and furniture burning...very toxic **** when burned.

so youll burn a house, pollute the earth, and put a man out of home to justify enviromental socialism?

this is why enviromentalism is

Odin · February 23, 2003, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
so youll burn a house, pollute the earth, and put a man out of home to justify enviromental socialism?

this is why enviromentalism is

The pollution is tiny compared to cars and factories.

Why can't you people undersrtand, we are killing species off faster than new ones can evolve, thats a mass extinction. If it wasn;'t for us, the number of species that are created by evolution will be equal to the species going extinct, a dynamic equalibrum of diversity. Also just taking out one species can ruin an entire ecosystem, no matter how small a roll it plays.

Dauphin · February 23, 2003, 19:05

I think containing the population of humans is a better use of resources than trying to save other species. If the root cause is humans, then the fewer there are the better.

MRT144 · February 23, 2003, 19:10

odin, save the world, kill yourself! you wont be here to **** it up any more anymore, or endure the horrible plague of humans. hell, ill pay for you to kill yourself.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2003, 19:11

the worst part about pollution is that it causes markets to fail and thus a free market system will not work anymore.

Odin · February 23, 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I think containing the population of humans is a better use of resources than trying to save other species. If the root cause is humans, then the fewer there are the better.

I was just about to tell those bozos that.

MRT144 · February 23, 2003, 19:21

hence my offer to pay for your suicide

General Ludd · February 23, 2003, 19:22

I find it odd that the people who do not care about anything other then humans don't mind that there is a mass-extinction happening, that life is going the way of the dinosaurs again. We're certainly not going to be one of the few species that survive. (not that it's guaranteed anything will survive at all) We're far too dependant on other life. We are, societally speaking, incapable of "living in the rough". And we are just far too complex and specialized a life form to survive a mass extinction.

Odin · February 23, 2003, 19:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
I find it odd that the people who do not care about anything other then humans don't mind that there is a mass-extinction happening, that life is going the way of the dinosaurs again. We're certainly not going to be one of the few species that survive. (not that it's guaranteed anything will survive at all) We're far too dependant on other life. We are, societally speaking, incapable of "living in the rough". And we are just far too complex and specialized a life form to survive a mass extinction.

Case Closed, DF is SCREWED.

MRT144 · February 23, 2003, 19:27

might as well live it up while you still got time

Dauphin · February 23, 2003, 19:28

What is it about an ecosystem that is lost by mass extinction?

What are the things that humans need to survive? - remember that we've domesticated most of our food supply species and their numbers are ever increasing.

Where is the overlap in those answers?

Sandman · February 23, 2003, 19:40

Species which provide no benefit to humans are irrelevant. Most species that one can name do, however. But if a bird that was probably made up by Victorian explorers is declared 'extinct' who cares?

General Ludd · February 23, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
What is it about an ecosystem that is lost by mass extinction?

What are the things that humans need to survive? - remember that we've domesticated most of our food supply species and their numbers are ever increasing.

Where is the overlap in those answers?

The overlap is Diversity.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the first question - generally, mass-extinction means that an ecosystem loses pretty much everything in it untill it's either dead, or has adapted and become an essentially different ecosystem.

As for the second Question, we are dependant on a healthy ecosystem to survive. We can not feed our cattle without grains, we can not grow grains without healthy soil, and we can not breathe without trees. That is very simplified, of course - there are countless other ways that we are inter-dependant with the rest of the life on our planet.

MRT144 · February 23, 2003, 19:46

**** it, we should just start killing enviromentalists. less people and no one to complain about the planet going to hell.

General Ludd · February 23, 2003, 19:59

Go play quake or something, MRT144.

Urban Ranger · February 24, 2003, 00:14

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Lot's of species are dying out, in exchange for a higher standard of living for humans? Good trade

Right now, the Calvin and Hobbes strip where a large flying saucer sucking up air is always appropiate. Too bad I haven't been able to find it on the Web.