« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mnopq, Shweta-sj
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
jodevizes
Joined: Jul 4, 2009
Posts: 13
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female & 25
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 8, 2009 - 03:04 PM
|
|
I was just thinking that given that the dear old earth is over 4 billion years old, all these people going around shouting we must save the planet is a bit silly. What they should be saying is we need to save our own backsides. The hairless apes are beginning to be running scared.
The planet will go on and on. Look at the way plants grow through our ridiculous concrete and up through the tarmac and will penetrate whatever we build.
Time to be honest with the world I think.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Pr@su,सूर्य
Joined: Mar 16, 2009
Posts: 57
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Male, 21
Country: Nepal
Province/State: Bagmati
City: Kathmandu
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 8, 2009 - 10:40 PM
|
|
The construction done in this earth is only its raw materials. We dont need to worry about its burden. We need to save earth means we should prevent non-natural activities that degrades the environment. So have a deep view.........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sun-e-boy (सूर्य)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Maryanne C
Joined: Jun 15, 2009
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 17
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 9, 2009 - 10:50 AM
|
|
@ jodevizes. Yup, pretty much I agree with you. There was a wonderful speech on this that I'll try to find again and maybe post later in a blog (too long for here), but here was the gist of it.
Like you said, earth is billions of years old. It has survived through the meteor showers (or asteroid? Can't remember which they're called when they enter the atmosphere) and the eruption of volcanoes that killed the dinosaurs, as well as mountains rising and falling, entire continents shifting and breaking apart, several ice ages and I'm sure many other disasters I'm forgetting to mention.
If, for say, the earth grows so hot that all life on the surface died. Beneath the surface some microscopic organisms would survive. When conditions became habitable again, they would return to the surface and life would start again. Of course, it would take another billion years to develop and would certainly be much different than what we know now, but the point is that life would go on and the earth wouldn't even miss us. We have, after all, only been here for a blink of earth's eye, or a beat of its heart, whichever seems more poetic to you.
You can probably already see where I'm going with this. It has survived through worse things than before, and it will certainly survive us.
What we do need to save are all the species of the earth and resources on the planet, not for the planet but for us . It saddens me, because in my grandparents' or even just my parent's time they could see fish literally jumping from the streams and deer in the forests and hawks and owls and bats and other creatures that are now a rarity... and I'll never get to see any of those things, experience those things they experienced.
The only wild deer I saw had been hit by a train and was dead; hawks I've only seen in cottage country. I've never seen a wild owl or fox and only seen a bat not in cage when I was too young to remember.
Future generations are going to look back on us and think we're complete barbarians, seeing how much we consumed and how many sights and animals we've deprived those same generations of.
I can't begin to comprehend why people don't care, because out of all the planets, earth obviously has the highest oxygen level, around 21%, I believe. The next highest level of oxygen of any planet is 0.15%.
But that wasn't your question. Now I'll summarize in around forty words what I previously said in 300 (I'm pretty longwinded). Effectively, yes, "saving the planet" is a misnomer. It's we who are in danger, not the planet (I can't stress that enough). Quote from aforementioned speech: "We don't have the power to save the earth--or to destroy it. But we do have the power to save ourselves."
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
jodevizes
Joined: Jul 4, 2009
Posts: 13
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 25
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 9, 2009 - 02:03 PM
|
|
Sadly, the only way to reverse any of this bad stuff is to severely reduce the worlds population as the more people there are, the more resources we shall be using.
It was only the Second World War that helped preserve the fish stocks in the North Sea.
Whether it is going to be a number of terrible wars or a series of hideous diseases or both, it has to happen or we are all doomed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Devizes knows a womens website that is rather good.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Maryanne C
Joined: Jun 15, 2009
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 17
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 10, 2009 - 09:41 AM
|
|
Yes, my thoughts are pretty much the same, and it is quite sad.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 24
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 50
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 10, 2009 - 09:22 PM
|
|
You two young women are much too pessimistic! Doesn't it bother you that we are "going to hell in a handbasket"? Do you have no plans for the future? Are you content to watch humans destroy themselves?
Humans are going to take down a lot of other species with them. Today I read that atmospheric levels of CO2 will reach 450 ppm by 2050, and the most the Earth's oceans can withstand is 360 ppm. Coral reefs are already dying as I write, the CO2 level is 387 ppm today.
Look around in the Internet. Check out Peakmoment.tv (homepage or on Youtube) or YES! Magazine's homepage. There are people fighting to change the way we live, to make our lives more sustainable.
Such defeatism (in Ms. Devizes's case, Schadenfreude?) in people so young! You should be idealistic and want to save the world!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Maryanne C
Joined: Jun 15, 2009
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 17
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 13, 2009 - 03:24 PM
|
|
There is so much wrong with what you said, it’s taken me this long to formulate a 600-word answer that encompasses all I want to say.
“You two young women are much too pessimistic!”
I’ll speak for myself. I’m the devil’s advocate, the messenger you’re not supposed to shoot, trying to remind people about reality -- soon it won’t be up to us to decide who eats and who starves. The world won’t support all of us. It’s the simple law of carrying capacity. Reality’s downside: consequences. Look at our dwindling food supplies and dwindling lumber and dwindling oil reserves. The problem isn’t too many people? jodevizes’ suggestion (which I share), while dispassionate, is the simplest solution. It doesn't mean we like it.
“Doesn't it bother you that we’re "going to hell in a handbasket"? Do you have no plans for the future? Are you content to watch humans destroy themselves?”
We are obviously bothered and malcontent which is why we’re here on TIG: to be immersed in a community that cares about the world and its people. We're simply lamenting because problems have gotten this bad. I'm also surprised at how venomous you came across with these accusations. You’re trying to make us sound like terrible people and then act like you haven’t done anything offensive.
“Humans are going to take down a lot of other species with them. Atmospheric CO2 levels will reach 450 ppm by 2050; the most the Earth's oceans can withstand is 360 ppm. Coral reefs are already dying as I write; the CO2 level is 387 ppm today.”
Pessimistic, much? It works in reverse, too, so don’t nitpick.
“Look around in the Internet. Check out Peakmoment.tv or YES! magazine's homepage. There are people fighting to change the way we live, to make our lives more sustainable.”
... not to mention TIG, which we're posting on.We know; but to have solutions you first have to know what the problem is... we’re here to spread awareness of that problem!
“Such defeatism (in Ms. Devizes's case, Schadenfreude?) in people so young! You should be idealistic and want to save the world!”
Firstly, accusing jodevizes of being a Schadenfreude was very presumptuous and overall just plain rude. Again, merely a remorseful suggestion. Schadenfreude would mean she’d and take pleasure from misfortune, when she clearly wasn’t. You come across depicting us, again, like we’re terrible people.
Well, what I’m really doing is hanging my head in shame because the masses don’t realize they’re destroying themselves. And I think life will go on despite what we can do to the planet; that’s not pessimistic! If earth was only five metres closer to the sun, it would be uninhabitable. Life’s just simply mindboggling! I’m shaking my head because I can’t understand why most people can’t see that.
Secondly, deaths/ends are inevitable but defeat is not. I don’t know where you got defeatist from... because I know that humanity will cease to exist someday? That’s logic (which you apparently confuse with pessimism), not defeat. And it doesn't matter. I care about the journey -- and I must to still be alive -- and I also care about humanity’s future. It's just sad that my children won’t see what I see, or that I’ll never get to see what my own parents saw. That’s all. Sadness, not resignation, is what you see.
Maybe you’re just compassionate and are surprised to see young people (almost) jaded but at least we know enough to care, right?
Now please stop trolling and just answer: do you think saving the planet is a misnomer?
This post was edited on: 2009-07-13 at 07:56 PM by: MaryanneC
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 24
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 50
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 14, 2009 - 05:35 AM
|
|
MaryanneC wrote:
Now please stop trolling and just answer: do you think saving the planet is a misnomer?
No. I admire all people who seek to "save the planet." They obviously care for other things besides "their own hide." There are plenty of planets out there, barren ones that support no life. I sincerely hope that Earth doesn't become one of them.
I object to this defeatist tone because it plays right into the hands of those who would have us do nothing. History is full of civilizations that just grew and grew, oblivious to the burdens they were putting on their immediate environment, until those civilizations collapsed. Jared Diamond's book "Why Civilizations Collapse" is very interesting reading. He also mentions a few success stories, societies that recognized the error in their ways and took corrective action.
I agree things look bad, but this is no time to give up.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Maryanne C
Joined: Jun 15, 2009
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 17
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 14, 2009 - 10:02 AM
|
|
prieten47 wrote:
I agree things look bad, but this is no time to give up.
Agreed; I don't think we should give up either. I think I'll check out that book you mentioned, too. I'm fascinated with ancient history.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
jodevizes
Joined: Jul 4, 2009
Posts: 13
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 25
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 14, 2009 - 01:53 PM
|
|
Sadly you still haven't got it. The hairless apes will probably destroy themselves and many other species along the way. There have been many species that have already died out for one reason or another and new species take their place.
Now you maybe running scared but unless you know some way that nobody else does, well apart from Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and a few other despots, of curbing population growth, then it will happen.
Luckily, the Chinese had a stab at it, limiting couples to one child, Lord knows where we would be if they hadn't but it is unenforceable globally.
So my friends if it a human solution, it will be a war on a massive scale and if the planet has anything to do about it, it will be one or several terrible and virulent diseases.
By all means carry on with your plans but I fear you are shouting in the wind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Devizes knows a womens website that is rather good.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Maryanne C
Joined: Jun 15, 2009
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 17
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 14, 2009 - 03:05 PM
|
|
The hairless apes will probably destroy themselves and many other species along the way?
I think it would be more like we will destroy ourselves and other species. No bout-a-doubt-it.
Population growth does need to be curbed, and I see the wisdom behind the Chinese's solution of one child limit (as much as I personally dislike it, it is a good idea. National vote for enforcing it? Would say yes). But yes, enforcing it globally? Virtually impossible. As for other means to diminishing the population enough... I can't see any way besides, yes, disease or war, or we simply grow to such numbers we run out of resources... but then again what do I know, right? There could be other solutions. Just because I can't see them doesn't mean they're not there. I also do think that science, eventually, will find out some way to increase the efficiency of resources and their consumption... eventually being the key word there. Right now the only solution is less people.
As a guard against the defeatist claim, I'll offer a positive suggestion. Eat only two meals a day (or one, even). There. You won't die by skipping one meal, you'll consume at least 30% less food, you'll get a warm & fuzzy feeling, you won't get fat, more food available for the greedy masses, you'll save money, etc. with benefits. 3 meals isn't necessary despite what "recommended daily intake" says. I'd like to know who came up with those completely inane numbers. 8 cups of water a day? 6 servings of veggies and grain (Canada's guide)? C'mon, you can live comfortably on half of that.
As for the "shouting in the wind" analogy, very nicely done... maybe more like shouting into a hurricane, though.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
James An
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 22
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 14, 2009 - 07:44 PM
|
|
I think "saving the planet" is justified in trying to reduce the suffering we cause onto ourselves and other organisms. It's easy to see the devastating effects of deforestation on many ecosystems and it's scientific consensus that global warming is an eminent disaster that will affect organisms globally. Worst of all, there is strong opposition (often financially or politically motivated) to many attempts in solving the issues.
So although "saving the planet" may sound naive and may be paraded around by people who may not really understand what it means, there is sound reason that supports it.
-----------
There's so much offense in some of these posts that I'm not sure if what's being written is actually what's believed or if what's being written is just to rile people up:
We are neither hairless nor are we apes, and to use that as some sort of derogatory term is made more offensive by the assumption that apes are somehow lesser than people and is therefore a suitable insult to people.
And no, I'm not running scared. Making a haughty assumption that you may scare people is offensive to me because both you think you're scaring people and you don't seem to care if you are.
Worst still is how you list people responsible for some of the worst atrocities in recent history as if they did us a favour, showing both how little you know about those atrocities and how little you care about the suffering they created. No sound logic would lead a reasonable person to a solution to our present-day problems by genocide.
There are many implications for China's one-child policy beyond population control; among them are: a compromise of human rights, through instances of forced abortions/sterilization and child abandonment; and a high ratio of boys to girls in the new generation, now creating additional social problems in China. It's not even certain whether the decrease in China's population growth was caused by the one-child policy as industrialization as China experienced tends to drastically reduce population growth anyway.
-----------
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN announced in 2002 that the there is enough food to support the world as far as to 2030 and that global food production is expected to exceed population growth until then.
I think the problem with food is more about access to food than it is about whether we are producing enough globally.
There are well-documented examples of countries that experienced famine even while producing enough food. Disastrous policies. That's the root cause. The major famines of Russia were either caused or exacerbated by poor agricultural policy. In some cases, Russia was exporting food while its people were starving to death. China's Great Leap Forward is another example of disastrous policy that caused some 20-43 million deaths, many by starvation, despite positive forecasts for crop yields.
-----------
I don't think eating less in Canada will improve access to food abroad, as the lack of access doesn't seem to be caused directly by our demand for food. What seems to be primary causes is policy issues and food price speculation on the global market cutting off food access to the poorest.
Still, food waste is a huge problem. A 2004 study from the University of Arizona showed that people waste about 14% of food they buy in hte US. I expect similar statistics in Canada. Food waste is better documented in the UK, showing that 49% of potatoes thrown away are untouched and that 45% of purchased salad (by weight) is thrown away uneaten.
Even more than effective than skipping meals, simply don't waste food. Be mindful of when food may spoil and plan your eating accordingly.
-----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_USSR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_waste
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/US-wastes-half-its-food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_waste_in_the_United_Kingdom
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Maryanne C
Joined: Jun 15, 2009
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 17
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 16, 2009 - 09:48 AM
|
|
Nice facts. I think with 21 more years of guaranteed food, people will have enough time to come up with more sustainable styles, and allow science time to cope with higher demands in the food industry. But, on the other hand, 21 years isn't that long until we run out of food. I'll be 38 by then, huh...
And I didn't mean Canada specifically; I just took those numbers from Canada's health guide. I think if all the developed countries tried to follow two meals a day instead of three, it would help tremendously. But that's just my copper on the matter.
But help as much as food wastage? Maybe not, because I didn't realize the numbers were so large (49% of potatoes? Seriously? Potatoes are delicious; I'm actually going to have mashed potatoes for lunch.) That's probably a bigger concern, and would help more. Your idea might have supremacy but it's not a competition when we can do both. Then imagine how much excess food we'd have, with no waste and less consumption. My idea does have one advantage, though: most people might waste food because they simply forget, and they can't really decide not to forget. Whereas forgoing a meal is by choice and so is likely easier to uphold.
This post was edited on: 2009-07-16 at 09:53 AM by: MaryanneC
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
jodevizes
Joined: Jul 4, 2009
Posts: 13
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 25
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 16, 2009 - 02:04 PM
|
|
Maybe those facts are not so good. Back in 2002 nobody was talking much about global warming. If this really kicks in it is going to radically change the growing potentials of many different places. Water could disappear from certain areas. Look at the Aral Sea, it is a puddle and the same goes with the Dead Sea. There is a guy with a Spa Hotel he built in the 50's where the people would come out of their rooms and dive straight in. Now they have to take a bus to get to the water.
No my friends, do not believe figures projected 30 years ahead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Devizes knows a womens website that is rather good.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
James An
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 22
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 16, 2009 - 02:54 PM
|
|
I'm not trying to outcompete your posts or to "beat" your ideas. I'm trying to argue that:
1. yes, there's hope;
2. no, we don't have to compromise our health or our well-being for humanity to survive;
3. yes, reasonable solutions exist; and
4. the root cause of our problems is not an external limit or resource shortage; the root cause is ourselves.
I was firm about some of things that were posted because I felt they hurt the spirit of community that places like TIG nurtures. I also selected figures that contrasted strongly with what was being said here to suggest that there are alternatives and other perspectives to the situation in an attempt to instill hope in us all about our future.
And yes, I agree with Jo that it's virtually impossible to predict the global situation 30 years from now. Still, your ideas about needing to vastly reduce our population and how little hope we have to survive are conclusions drawn from predictions about our far future as well, and what can be said about the reliability of 30-year projections can also be said of your ideas for our future.
Although global warming was not in the public mindset in 2002, I think it was well-accepted in the academic circles even before then. The enormous body of research and publications that support the reality of global warming didn't pop-up overnight, or even in the last few years.
----------
If you dig even deeper in your research, you'll find some truly depressing sights of devastated landscapes and unearthly transformation of parts of planet into inhospitable wastelands.
I randomly bumped into the work of Ed Burtynsky recently, a Canadian photographer and artist who most well-known for his sweeping photographs of landscapes touched by industry. If you have time, watch his "Manufactured Landscapes". It's a powerful and compelling documentary film that shows the extent of our industrial activity.
Here's some photographs of his work:
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Breaking_Ground/Tailings/Tailings_35.html
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Urban_Mines/Metal_Recycling/Metal_Recycling_16.html
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Breaking_Ground/Mines/Mines_22.html
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Breaking_Ground/Tailings/Tailings_12.html
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Ships/Shipbreaking/Shipbreaking_01.html
When I see those things, I feel like taking action. It can be small lifestyle changes like refusing to eat fast food and reducing my meat consumption to more committed ones like deciding not to shop at Walmart and other big boxes or to commit to not buying anything new for a time period (a really big commitment). Or maybe it'll take the form of raising awareness in our families, our friends, or our community from what we've learned. Explaining to my parents why buying cheap things is not always a good thing, that local purchases are good for both them and the rest of the world.
Or you may want to do more, like the founders of TIG did by creating this online space, or like many of the people involved in the various "Without Borders" NGOs. Or you may want to start something locally in your school or your community, a group take focuses on an aspect of improving the world, whether its about something personal like healthy eating and fitness, or about something broader like a youth council to engage youth in decision-making.
There are infinite ways to take action and help "save the planet".
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
« BACK TO FORUM
|
Forum Jump:
|
 1 2 »
All times are GMT-05:00
|
» Check that you are logged in!
You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
|
|
Administrators:
Liamjod
Moderators:
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mnopq, Shweta-sj
|
|
Home
Community
