when are we going to stop ...
-
... raping this planet? http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,2124251,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12[^]
The tug-of-war between environmental activists and industrials is always on the forefront and full vigor. With raging amounts and furious bureocratic red tape maladies and procedures corrupting the fine fabric of every nation, Time alone can heal and cure the sickness and answer your query. :)
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
-
... raping this planet? http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,2124251,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12[^]
At around about the point when a third of life in the Sea is extinct, a third of the land is unihabitable and the atmosphere is about a third of the way to being uninhabitable in one way or another depending on how you interpret the prophesies. As you asked. By the look of things I would say some time in the next 50-150 years. Unfortunately the thing most likely to stop the environemntal destruction any sooner is the UN/EAC/CFR plan to wipe out a couple of billion people with racial or socially targetted bioweapons disguised as 'naturaly occuring' new diseases. Not exactly a progressive solution.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
... raping this planet? http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,2124251,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12[^]
People > Birds no matter how photogenic, a dreadfully old fashioned attitude I know. African development should also be a matter for Africans, not western environmental NGO's. Thankfully we didn't have a chorus of foreign hippies tut tutting every time we uprooted an oak forest or built a lead smelter in the 19th century or I would be shovelling horse shit for a living. Our wealth and security buys us the ability to care for the environment as more than a source of cash. Forcing Africa to put the cart before the horse will simply help condemn them to continued poverty.
-
People > Birds no matter how photogenic, a dreadfully old fashioned attitude I know. African development should also be a matter for Africans, not western environmental NGO's. Thankfully we didn't have a chorus of foreign hippies tut tutting every time we uprooted an oak forest or built a lead smelter in the 19th century or I would be shovelling horse shit for a living. Our wealth and security buys us the ability to care for the environment as more than a source of cash. Forcing Africa to put the cart before the horse will simply help condemn them to continued poverty.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Forcing Africa to put the cart before the horse will simply help condemn them to continued poverty.
So you don't believe in that saying about he who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat the mistakes? Sustainable development was not considered in the 19th century but maybe should be now. It makes me sad to think of the destruction of a natural habitat to make paper that'll eventually be packaging at some fast food place.
-
... raping this planet? http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,2124251,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12[^]
The way we're going we're going to end up having environmentaly motivated wars. The desire to make money and progress is just way too strong to stop. Whether fat_boy's right or not, something big is going to give eventually. We're bound to keep going until we're stopped or we're too scared. Then it's going to get messy. I can see it now. Some power annexing off Africa and South America as environmental buffers.
Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck. -
People > Birds no matter how photogenic, a dreadfully old fashioned attitude I know. African development should also be a matter for Africans, not western environmental NGO's. Thankfully we didn't have a chorus of foreign hippies tut tutting every time we uprooted an oak forest or built a lead smelter in the 19th century or I would be shovelling horse shit for a living. Our wealth and security buys us the ability to care for the environment as more than a source of cash. Forcing Africa to put the cart before the horse will simply help condemn them to continued poverty.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Forcing Africa to put the cart before the horse will simply help condemn them to continued poverty.
So you don't believe in that saying about he who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat the mistakes? Sustainable development was not considered in the 19th century but maybe should be now. It makes me sad to think of the destruction of a natural habitat to make paper that'll eventually be packaging at some fast food place.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Sustainable development
Is a code word for 'no development', especially in an environment as beautiful and unspoiled as much of Africa. If we value Africa's environment so much, then we should pay more to preserve it than African can earn by using it for industry. Though that has unpleasantly paternalistic implications. I have no objection to environmentalism per se, but not at the expense of human development or the will of local people.
-
By "cart before the horse" do you mean caring about their envirnment being trashed before they trash it?
Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.TClarke wrote:
caring about their envirnment being trashed before they trash it
Yes, concern for the welfare of photogenic birds in a salt lake is a luxury of the rich. Concern about say, a factory dumping arsenic in an aquifer would be equally a concern for the poor. Would you consider the English countryside to be 'trashed'? We did after all start the industrial revolution, chop down 90% of our forests and exterminate most of our large wild mammals.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Sustainable development
Is a code word for 'no development', especially in an environment as beautiful and unspoiled as much of Africa. If we value Africa's environment so much, then we should pay more to preserve it than African can earn by using it for industry. Though that has unpleasantly paternalistic implications. I have no objection to environmentalism per se, but not at the expense of human development or the will of local people.
-
TClarke wrote:
caring about their envirnment being trashed before they trash it
Yes, concern for the welfare of photogenic birds in a salt lake is a luxury of the rich. Concern about say, a factory dumping arsenic in an aquifer would be equally a concern for the poor. Would you consider the English countryside to be 'trashed'? We did after all start the industrial revolution, chop down 90% of our forests and exterminate most of our large wild mammals.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Would you consider the English countryside to be 'trashed'?
Yes, and with the current house-building programme it's going to be more so. Why we need more houses when there are 1,000,000 empty houses in the UK is beyond me.
-
TClarke wrote:
caring about their envirnment being trashed before they trash it
Yes, concern for the welfare of photogenic birds in a salt lake is a luxury of the rich. Concern about say, a factory dumping arsenic in an aquifer would be equally a concern for the poor. Would you consider the English countryside to be 'trashed'? We did after all start the industrial revolution, chop down 90% of our forests and exterminate most of our large wild mammals.
That's a very similar argument to that being put forward by India and China when the west expresses concerns about what their doing to their environment. It's compelling too. How can we ask them not to do what we've done (especially when they can see how prosperous it has made us). However, what is the cost? I wonder, can the earth sustain such subjugation and polution? There are realities at hand that we cannot aford to ignore. It simply may not be possible to industrialise the whole world and keep a life sustaining climate. Now, that might sound a bit dramatic for a bunch of pretty birds but the whole thing is going a bunch of pretty birds at a time. While (Man > birds) if (world == world - birds) man = 0;
Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck. -
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Is a code word for 'no development',
Perhaps you should visit the sustainable development of forests in Germany, Austria and many Scandinavian countries.
And Canada and the US and UK.. Friends of the earth et al moan about commercial forestry too, you should read some of the criticism of Patrick Moore's[^] for working with logging and fish farming companies.
-
... raping this planet? http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,2124251,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12[^]
When the human race get extinct.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
When the human race get extinct.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
What a lovely greenie thought for the day. Who goes first?
-
When the human race get extinct.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
What a lovely greenie thought for the day. Who goes first?
Q: When are we going to stop raping this planet? A: When the human race gets extinct. What I mean here is that we are going to rape this planet until there is none of us left. After that, the earth will take a few million years to recover and heal. If we want to avoid this, the solution is not to complain about companies that are raping the planet, but more to us consumers of the products made by those companies. If we stop buying stuff we don't need, they will stop raping the planet. But this is utopia, so my first answer still holds.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
Have you considered changing your user name to something appropriate like Charlie Chuckles? :)
... or "Le Fataliste".
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
Q: When are we going to stop raping this planet? A: When the human race gets extinct. What I mean here is that we are going to rape this planet until there is none of us left. After that, the earth will take a few million years to recover and heal. If we want to avoid this, the solution is not to complain about companies that are raping the planet, but more to us consumers of the products made by those companies. If we stop buying stuff we don't need, they will stop raping the planet. But this is utopia, so my first answer still holds.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
If we want to avoid this, the solution is not to complain about companies that are raping the planet
But 'raping' our not actually anthropomorphic planet has allowed us to increase our population to levels that can sustain the forms of society we currently enjoy. And we thrived during the incredibly hostile environment of last ice age with nothing more than stone tools, animal skins and a illiterate hunter-gatherer culture. What do you think is going to bump us off, the great old ones[^]?
Le Centriste wrote:
few million years to recover and heal
You think humanity is a disease? And I hope you realise quite how religious your position sounds for a supposed atheist.
-
... raping this planet? http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,2124251,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12[^]
Nothing quite like a little melodrama to get your point across, ey? Besides, you read this in the Guardian: you're either a left-wing pinko commie tree-hugging hippie or... No, that must be it. In any case we're NOT raping it, we're just using it and it'll still be here long after we're all dust so quit whining and get a life. :)
