 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
jodevizes
Joined: Jul 4, 2009
Posts: 15
Poster Rank:
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 17, 2009 - 02:16 PM
|
|
Well, as soon as I had a say in it I gave up eating meat of any kind. And I try to keep myself on the ethical side of life, not using sprays when CFC's were found to be bad, shame the ones used to replace them ended up being even worse. I was an early user of Ecover products and recycled un-bleached toilet papaer and kitchen rolls. The list goes on but it still doesn't change the fact that it is the Hairless apes that need to be saved because the planet will keep on trucking whether we are here or not and we are being incredibly arogant to think this little blip in the history of the earth can 'save' it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Devizes knows a womens website that is rather good.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 24
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 51
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
July 17, 2009 - 07:39 PM
|
|
MaryanneC wrote:
Now please stop trolling and just answer: do you think saving the planet is a misnomer?
I confess I had no idea what "trolling" means. But I found this definition on PCmagazines homepage:
(1) Surfing, or browsing, the Web.
(2) Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding.
(3) Hanging around in a chat room without saying anything, like a "peeping tom."
Well, Maryanne, 1 and 3 don't apply, so I ask you to re-examine the posts in this thread and decide WHO meets the definition number 2. As James An rightly pointed out, I think Ms. Devizes is the one engaging in this behavior.
|
|
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 18, 2009 - 11:44 AM
|
|
jodevizes wrote:
it is the Hairless apes that need to be saved because the planet will keep on trucking whether we are here or not and we are being incredibly arogant to think this little blip in the history of the earth can 'save' it.
Sure, the planet will keep "trucking" onward, as in the big rock we inhabit will still remain as a big rock and will still orbit the sun.
I think when we say "saving the planet", we mean the biosphere more than the physical planet we inhabit.
|
|
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 20, 2009 - 09:26 AM
|
|
I'm not trying to outcompete your posts or to "beat" your ideas.
--
Yeah, I know, I was trying to be playful but obviously failing and coming off as serious. I'll pick my words more carefully next time.
what can be said about the reliability of 30-year projections can also be said of your ideas for our future.
--
Hm I strongly disagree with that but I don't think this (rather intense & tentatively phrased) "posting war" would help. It's all just my personal opinion, and opinions never really change minds. One fact I can say is that we have five billion years (I think that was the magic number) before the sun explodes and consumes earth and our solar system. Now, we might not die out even then, but we have five billion years to clear the neighbourhood. If we're around then (personally doubted) we'd have to find another habitable planet.
And a funny thing about global warming I don't entirely believe yet but am quite amused at discovering: it actually ended ten years ago. Since 1998, the world's been getting colder. Not sure about the reliability of this source article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Funny, funny stuff if it's true. Pretty true here in Canada, eh? It's almost August and I still haven't taken my shorts out. And this winter was brutally cold.
And don't worry prieten47, I regretted posting that as soon as I said it but wouldn't let myself change it. I was in a bad mood that day and therefore brash.  That definition seems flawed but still, that approximates to an apology, right?
Now the general consensus here seems to be that Saving the Planet is a coined ideal, more or less; "planet's" definition in that phrase is what's up for debate.
This post was edited on: 2009-07-20 at 03:32 PM by: MaryanneC
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
jodevizes
Joined: Jul 4, 2009
Posts: 15
Poster Rank:
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 20, 2009 - 02:03 PM
|
|
Look everybody it doesn't matter if you put save the planet in " " or not you are not saving the planet, you are trying to save your own butts. This planet is going to save itself and if that means shrugging off the hairless apes it will do it.
Please get your wording right. This planet is not delicate. It is a huge bloody rock whizzing around the universe and it doesn't give a toss for any insignificant life form that happens to be crawling across it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 24, 2009 - 08:36 PM
|
|
@Maryanne: I think we get a bit too serious. Sorry about that. It's hard (for me) to read the inflection or meaning from just the words.
I'm surprised by The Australian article that global temperatures have actually plateaued and are decreasing. I'm definitely going to look into it.
But you're right, at least for Canada: our winters have been brutally cold recently. I've rationalized this with global warming by thinking that global warming is somehow causing our extreme climate changes. No support for that though.
It would be pretty ironic if this decrease in global temperatures does check out. A lot of people: politicians, scientists, societies and associations, will be embarassed by the turn of events.
A quick glimpse at the Global warming Wiki article shows that NASA estimated 2005 to have been the warmest year since the late 1800s when reliable measurements became available, beating the last record set in 1998. Other groups like the World Meteorological Organization estimated 2005 to have been the 2nd warmest year, behind 1998, citing the unusual warmth in 1998 as being caused by the strongest El Niño that has occurred in the last century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The following image seems to be pretty authoritative in showing the global temperatures changing since the late 1880s. The rightmost points seem to show that temperatures may be plateauing, but it's difficult to tell because the changes are smaller than the noise (the jaggedness) of the graph. I'll try to look more into it though.
I think what you said just about wraps it up here:
MaryanneC wrote:
Now the general consensus here seems to be that Saving the Planet is a coined ideal, more or less; "planet's" definition in that phrase is what's up for debate.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Otis
Joined: Aug 13, 2009
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 19
Country: Jamaica
Province/State: Saint Catherine
City: Spanish Town
|
Re: Is Saving The Planet a Mis-Nomer?
August 18, 2009 - 09:54 AM
|
|
Yes, we can severely harm the planet. But after us the earth will bounce back, assume carbon emissions gets taken care of. Venus is the Ultimate finish line of carbon emissions. Hopefully we never push the planet to those levels.
The earths flourishes because it has natural cycles and systems it uses to protect itself. We do not attack the planet physically, we go inside the earth and sabotage it from the inside out. The carbon emissions of volcanoes and such can be handled pretty fine, but the extra load we put on it(yes, it is a very big load) is over bearing and we are seeing the results. Climate change and other influences we have made are coming back at us in the form of steroid pumped hurricanes and monster earthquakes and other interesting natural occurrences.
I have no doubt that after the earth becomes uninhabitable for us, and we all die out, life will start again as the earth restores balance to itself. While we should thrive to do our part to take care of the planet, do not forget that we will all pass away long before this planet ever does. Its literally the only suitable planet for millions and millions of miles away, DO NOT TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!xotîz
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
