I saw this video like 3 weeks ago and I loved it, I would like you to see it, its awesome, I hope you spend the next 4 min on it, its worth watching it
YouTube Video
I'd like to know your thoughts about this.... so what you think about this video and what we are doing?
Edited by JP on 06/13/2013 10:38:05
I'd agree that conservation is important, if not from an ethical or moral point of view, then from an economic and practical standpoint.
I wouldn't say it's the best video I've seen. He starts off saying "have you ever considered that this planet does not belong to us" then later keeps talking about "your planet"/"our planet". He also says that "we're the only species that attacks, destroys, annihilates, contaminates, and extinguishes" which is not true - the 'natural world' is full of predator-prey relationships and parasites, to name a couple of examples.
It's good on emotive language and imagery, but not especially enlightening.
I'm all for raising awareness and encouraging reflection on our effect on the planet and other species, but I'm not sure that pictures of wounded animals and an empty dialogue are the way to go about it. The route, in my opinion, is through education - it should start in schools.
I kinda agree with you Ninja, schools shouldnt only point on teach knowledge and make us learn all that stuff, i'm not saying that they shouldnt teach us that but also they should point on stuff like this and moral things. Kids are in the need to change this and the society we are living on. The most of the people doesnt care about the others and this has gone until a point where people make what ever to have what they want (Money, because having money means authority and control) inducing to this..... and the worst thing is that they dont realize this is going to affect them aswell.
We live on a world where we are taught what to think, not how to think, and I live this reality.... I live in a country where ''developed countries'' come, take what ever they want and then leave everything contamined. Like I said what matters is the money.
By the way when he said "have you ever considered that this planet does not belong to us" he meant that the world doesnt belong only to us, it belongs to everyone lives here (This video was originally made in spanish, and thats what he says)
You said ''He also says that "we're the only species that attacks, destroys, annihilates, contaminates, and extinguishes" which is not true - the 'natural world' is full of predator-prey relationships and parasites, to name a couple of examples''.... yea, but it is a food chain which is not bad because it controls the population of species and also do you think that the world would be like it is if we didnt exist? We have acelerate a lot this auto desctruction of the world with all the contamination and stuff we have done.
Edited by JP on 06/13/2013 13:12:46
We live on a world where we are taught what to think, not how to think
Exactly, I completely agree. In our current education system everything is geared towards getting marks in an exam rather than appreciation of the subject and development of cognitive processes. Being able to rattle off mark schemes for a geography exam might help pass the exam, but it doesn't prepare children for the rapidly changing world in which we live. Only by teaching children how to think, as you say, will they be able to cope with what the future holds.
I thought that some of the video it may have been lost in translation.
That said, I'd argue that the planet doesn't belong to anyone. It's a massive rock in space with lots of living things on it, but none of them own it.
I don't disagree that humans in general have had a negative impact on the planet, but I refute his claim that we're the only destructive species.
How do you think that we should go about 'saving the planet'?
Edited by ninja on 06/13/2013 16:08:49
ninja wrote:
It's a massive rock in space with lots of living things on it, but none of them own it.
Yea, it is, but those living things on it are the responsible of taking care of it and the best way to take care of something is making it yours, because when something is yours you take care of it more than other stuff.
If it isnt of the things that live on it, then it is of who? We are the only ''living thing'' in our solar system, i'm not saying that the other planets belong to us but if we live here (in earth) that means it is of us because no one else has proclaimed it like his.
That means that how it is ours we must take care of it how I already said and leave it how we found it, this conduce us to what I said before about the personal interests and not caring about the others.
ninja wrote:
I don't disagree that humans in general have had a negative impact on the planet, but I refute his claim that we're the only destructive species.
Tell me about other species that do what we have done or at least that do a 10% of what we have done.
Why do you think that the earth never had this kind of troubles before the humans had the ability to think?
ninja wrote:
How do you think that we should go about 'saving the planet'?
First off, one of the things that has the biggest impact in the earth is the way to produce energy that we have used for too many time, (Oil). There are a lot of other things from where we can get energy reducing the residue of it on a 70% or more. We can use plants, corn, algaes and this would reduce on a 70% the emition of CO2; we can also use garbage like in Norway and we can get energy from air that has not any kind of residue.
And again this conduce us to the personal interets. The companies that extract oil wont stop it because it translates to them in a lot of money. The barrel of oil cots about $96 and imagine how many barrels can they get in a day. So yea they wont stop just because they are contaminating the world.
Also the society should care about others because this thought isnt only in the powerfull people. The people generate a lot of garbage(This would be good if we use the garbage to make energy) but how we dont, this isnt good, we also should contribute to recuce it.
We can stop hunting animals just to sell their skins or horns, etc.
We cant recover what we already destroyed but at least we can stop destroying the things that we still have.
I say we put all we have behind nuclear power plants. The reason they are not productive is the regulations they have to go through. Anyone remember the Milstone 1 plant and the Shoreham plant? Basic story was the milstone plant had been generating electricity for about 2 5 years for a cost of 101 million. They decided to build one in New York, by people Complaining it drove the cost up to 5 billion, and when it was finally compleated the govener of new york strong armed the public utilities commision into allowing them to pass the cost onto its consumers only if it was agreed to no operate the plant. So they drilled holes in it, and 5 billion wasted. it Take 12 YEARS to build a power plant. And some people complain about dumping, so lets say you dump 400 kg of uranium into the water every year, everyone would go crazy no? Did you know that fossil fuel plants discharge 300 kg OF URANIUM into th air! per DAY!?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Did you know that every bit of waste product produced by a plant CAN BE REUSED!? the only reason they dont is because of the ability to make nuclear weapons, so instead they leave it out lying by a storage plant with almost no security........... there waiting to make a nice underground storage place, but due to envirio groups, they wont be allowed to built. SO all this nuclear waste that can be used to make bombs sits pretty much unprotected around storage plants instead of being reused. Agreed about oil and coal, nuclear compared to them almost doesn't pollute at all. The only reason its so expensive are of the ludicrous regulations. People are just unfortunately not willing to go out and actually look at it non objectively. Fusion would be the best power thro to light weight atoms like helium easily made, AND BAM!!!!!!!! enough powr to power the earth for a day or somethin like that where coal only coverts about 40 percent to actully energy, Unfortunently jp, everything has side effects. Personally i do believe in global warming, but i dont think its man made. Is humanity so vain that they think only of about 100 years or so of power in a billion year history really makes that much a difference? I know you say that we let coal into the atmoshere etc it produces alot of co2 well what of dinosuars?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2140323/Dinosaurs-produced-flatulence-force-climate-change.html
So they produced a gas 23 tims more potent in trapping heat then co2, took em 150 years, and that whole time they were producing 5 6 times more methane then all produced today? do some math and that comes out to alot of co2 to force super drasticc climate change. DID you know that co2 is now starting to not be the only main culprit in climate change?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm
Cows are starting to produce alot of methane why dont we stop eating beef? we want so much cow beef that we have started to make so many cows to feed us. And that leads to even more greenhouse gas.
And agreed ninja we should try to conserve what we have. Or use it to its best purpose with the least damage. Earth is always changing we might be a part of the influence but not something where we can stop it. Ninja not lny getting good grades on exams but sometimes opinions are tought rather then actual facts f or us to interpret from, they should be taught how to ANALYZE AND INTERPRET from facts not have opinions shoved down there throat. Ive seen many acidents of this here in America.
That pretty much amplifys what ninja said. They want to teach us what to think instead of how to think here in the U.S. You brits got the act better together then us Americans.
Edited by ODST on 06/13/2013 16:28:57
�RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin [C�R] Veteren
I was giving an example with the CO2 but ok, dinosaurs lasted too many time right? about 150 or 160 millions of years, how you said that they used to produced too many flatulence and gases then why did they last so many time in the earth? and they didnt extinguish because of that or am I wrong? Do you really think that cows or dinosaurs also make a big impact on enviroment? do you think that just because of them the world would deteriorate as fast as it is deteriorating right now?
Arent humans responsible of the global warming and the climate change? Havent we made this? or do you think that cows or other animals are also responsible of this?
Dont you think that if we hadnt the ability to think the world wouldnt be like it is? It would has normal food chains (we on it) and the world would go in a normal way of deterioration? I know the world has a useful life but do you really think that if we werent here the world would still be like it is just because of animals?
So basically my point is that dinos they produced a gas 23 tims more potent in trapping heat then co2, took em 150 years to force major climate, and that whole time they were producing 5 6 times more methane then all produced today, so if you think about that its first 23 times 1 normal co2 and you get 23 more for every one co2 so for every one molecule of methane back then it was 115 co2 molecules to equal. Dinosaurs made alot more gas then we do. 20 percent of curent greenhouse gasses are from cows MUUWWWWWWW lol or animals that expel methane. I don't believe humans are fully responsible for this.
Maybe even all togther
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
Sun Spots may be the cause of it read the article it gets very interesting on an alternate theory. I once took an enviromental class. The professor had us do an enviro news of the day. I did one on this. He pulled me over after i did it, and he was like " tim, global warming is real that article is wrong and only bashs global warming." Im like " just a idfferent viewpoint". "He was like " you rly should have talked to me about this before you did it, that was a very biased and wrong enviro news" -_-. Global warming is not super well understood, we must deductively figure out what causes it and not jump to conclusions or rule out all possibilitys. It could be anything that causes it. Hell a alien invasion of earth vould be causing it �RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin [C�R] Veteren
The article about the MUUWWWWWWWS lol says that ''Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. '' If you deduct the other 86% of contamination do you think that the world would it like it is?!?!
Humans are practically full responsibles of the contamination of the world, arent we?
What I meant starting this debate was that if we werent here, the world wouldnt be like it is right now
Once his attention was drawn to the carbon-14 record, he saw that it too matched the pattern. All the evidence pointed to long-sustained minimums and at least one maximum of solar activity in the past two thousand years. "
"Pushing farther, Eddy drew attention to a spell of high carbon-14, and thus low solar activity, during the 11th-12th centuries. Remarks in medieval manuscripts showed that these centuries had been unusually warm in Europe. It was far from proven that those were times of higher temperatures all around the globe. However, scientists were (as usual) particularly impressed by evidence from the North Atlantic region where most of them lived and where the historical record was best known. Especially notable was the mild weather that had encouraged medieval Vikings to establish colonies in Greenland — colonies that endured for centuries, only to perish from starvation in the Little Ice Age."
When a 1999 study reported evidence that the Sun's magnetic field had strengthened greatly since the 1880s, it brought still more attention to the key question: was increased solar activity the main cause of the rise of average global temperature over that period? As the 21st century began, most experts thought it likely that the Sun had driven at least part of the previous century's warming. Most convincingly, the warming from the 1880s to the 1940s had come when solar activity had definitely been rising, while the carbon dioxide buildup had not yet been large enough to matter much. A cooling during the 1950s and 1960s followed by the resumption of warming also correlated loosely with changes in solar activity."
"Fusion :However, the extreme requirements for continuous reactions and plasma containment led to projections being extended by several decades. In 2010, more than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial power production was still believed to be unlikely before 2050"
About what esimates say for it, it produces the power of the sun and doesnt produce any waste or major radiation hell they would be safer then a nuclear plant. Why use coal plants? too expensive to mine an then use. Fussion power will be so cheap tht no one will use other power sources. Thus solving if any exist, problams humanity has caused with global warming.
In the end i can only say this, we cant be sure of what is causing it, there are so many factors, and we have barely lived on this arth enough to compleatly understand it, as i said earlier, for all we know, little green men could be terraforming it
\
And on the video, interesting it is right about the fact we kill animels that is wrong, but it is quite biased shows only one viewpoint. it uses a pathos i think it is? approach i.e. shows dead animels or injured animels to people to get there sympathy, when people get emotional, they usally dont use logic or think. I dont think the earth will be a barren rock, i think climate change is the earths way of getting rid of pests. I think it will eventually get rid of us and then cool down if we go too far ofc.
�RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin [C�R] Veteren
Ok, I remember that I said before that the world has a useful life right? (I dont know if that's the right expression for that) so yea, it's obvious that the world would destroy because it will reach a momment when it will die but it will die on a natural and normal way.
We are here, we live here and havent we accelerate the destruction of the world? we have killed animals until extinguish them..... i'll ask again, arent we responsible of this?!?!
We can't be sure that we've made things worse, because we don't have a 'control' Earth (that is, one without humans) to study and compare with this one. We can, however, study the change over time of the environment with respect to the increasing human population and industrialisation. Of course, we can only induce correlation, but causality seems likely I think.
I think that one important question to consider is this: Should we be aiming to find new sources of power to cover our increasing energy needs, or should we be aiming to reduce our current usage so that it becomes sustainable?
I think both, why? because first our sources of power are really pollutant but we also need to reduce our current usage because we use a lot of our current sources of power, so that means that if we reduce our usage and find a less pollutant source of power, the impact that would result is bigger than if we only reduce our usage or if we find another source of power.
