A duty to indulge

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Oct 23 2007, 03:25 PM) [snapback]529409[/snapback]</div>

Or could the question be "Grand-dad, did you get caught up in man-made global warming hysteria at the beginning of the century?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 23 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]529412[/snapback]</div>

Why can't people get that through their thick skulls? It's not like it's some massive sacrifice. Just do what's right. Jeez... <_<

 

Until people realize that the earth cannot be inhabited by humans alone, and that we actually need other species for our survival, not much will change. An above poster boils the affects of our consumption down to that of Global Warming. Consumption = lesser quality of life. Consumption = degradation and loss of public land and biodiversity. Consumption = air contamination and water contamination. And so on.

I just finished a read in which environmentalists said they were challenged with finding a receptive audience for conservation based solely on the merits/idea of conservation alone. This occurs even when the importance and necessity of biodiversity is presented. They are being forced to amend their approach, selling the concept by quantifying the human benefit (yes, monetary) to the proposed, respective conservation goal. Seems that even in the face of such knowledge, we're not willing to acquiesce to the environment purely for the sake of the environment itself. It all boils down to money. Thick skulls indeed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Oct 23 2007, 04:04 PM) [snapback]529453[/snapback]</div>

Because I eat, breathe, and sleep this stuff I have to say you are 100% right. It is rather sadening. I do see that a lot of other countries are not so thick-skulled and are usually more willing to act. The level of apathy in this country makes me sick. I blame our education system and our media. Without even basic knowledge of ecosystems and physical geography there is no way we can expect the majority of the population to act when they don't even understand the scale of the problem. Worse yet you have major funding going to think tanks to make the public doubtful and suspicious of science.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 23 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]529412[/snapback]</div>

That is how the precautionary principle is supposed to play out. You are doing the best you can with the knowledge you have. You are saving money and helping to create a sustainable future for the following generations. Thank you Evan.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 23 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]529497[/snapback]</div>

Rights of the Individual are supreme here. We are much more a "me" society than just about anywhere else. That is, I think, the root of the problem.

 

The USA was founded by rugged individualists who were fighting against oppression of the Royals who were telling them what to do and taxing them without representation.

So, what would you suggest instead ?

 

The US economy is dependent on continued consumerism

I dont see a problem with it AS LONG AS we find new sources of raw materials

THERE IS NO LACK OF ENERGY OR LAW MATERIALS

There is however a severe lack of courageous visionary leaders to go and acquire those resources

 

I think we need to realize that by being very selfish we f*$k ourselves in the end. Being obsessed with "me" and "now" is not a very intelligent way to live your life. Witness the sad state of the American consumer. No savings. High debt load. Striving to keep up with the Jones' because that's the metric for self worth. It's a load of bollocks. There's plenty of energy, I'll grant you that. But until everythings made out of carbon nanotubes we're in for a massive resource crunch soon. There just no way that we can continue down the current path with more and more people achieve our standard of living (which is actually shite when you look at the state of health in this country). Look at the rate of change of the price of any metal. That's a good indicator of where we're headed.

I think it's a tremendous opportunity, actually. Material science is going to be a great place to be (look at Boeing with their dream liner, for example) employed in the next decade. Alternative energy and recycling are going to be huge (esp Nickel, Aluminium, Copper, Lead). At the same time, we're going to have to learn to live lighter on the land. That doesn't necessarily mean we'll live worse. However, if we don't change our ways we'll be in a bad way. I'm pretty optimistic that we'll come around. You can already see it happening.

 

The U.S. economy is doomed to fail because of it. Until the economy decides to work in accord with natural systems then we are doomed to fail. Rather than focus on new resources that create more waste byproducts, of which we may have no idea on their environmental impact, we should focus on reducing the consumption and finding alternative ways to used the waste byproducts we currently have or redesign products so the waste is useful for other products. Cradle to Cradle or Natural Capitalism if you will.

 

Fact is the US econbomy is still the economic engine that drives the world economy

Communism is a pipe dream that never worked, Mercantilism works for a short while, The EU is proving that socialism creates perpetual adolescents sucking on the govt teat forever & thats too expensive to keep going

So capitalism is the best we have and we can work to improve it

I really have no interest in reducing my consumption although I am interested in recycling and being more efficient

 

I'll tell my kids that I pushed as hard as I could to promote space exploration in order to preserve human and animal life and to explore the solar system.

I actually am a shareholder in several companies like Space Development that work in the space industry and I intend on becoming more involved with this industry as an investor and proponent

 

Funny you say that when for all human index reports and per capita income many EU countries rate higher than us. Preventative maintanence is always more profitable then erratic clean up (health and environmental).

It's too bad you fail to recognize the problems with over consumption. To bad for those who go without so you can live a cush life.

 

You fail to realize how much $$$ people like me give to charities to help all sorts of noble causes around the world

You really should learn more about someone before you start assuming & critisizing their lifestye

 

It doesn't really matter. So you spend money to help others while you live a lifestyle that causes damage? That is is like being an evolutionary biologist and a creationist at the same time. It's hipocrytical and not respectable IMO.

I don't have the time to learn about you. You present yourself in a particular manner on the internet and I will assume that is who you are with regards to how I address you. It's quite simple.

 

Yeah, like I care what you think of me

 

No, we had the technology readily available but didn't bother. We just kept guzzling oil until it ran out and kept polluting with the other type of emission(smog). After all, trying to make your future a better one isn't our duty. You can solve those problems yourself. We are entitled to waste and be carefree now, we've earned it.

 

Because these types are generally selfish, self centered, scientifically deficient.

 

Wow - a lot of name calling here. Can't we all just get along?

I find it is easier to be persuasive when we can at least agree on some common ground. I know I am not always agreeable with everyone on the whole global warming thing, but as I have posted in the past, I think it is reasonable to strive to reduce our impact on the planet and it it is prudent to live sensibly.

Even if money or wealth is one's primary concern (over say, environmental concerns), over-consumption is not a sensible strategy for preserving that wealth or passing it along to your kids.

So let's talk common sense and common ground and hold off on the name calling and judgmentalism as it is not persuasive.

Cheers!