4 ms·

Let's try to take apart this muck, which I seem to have read a hundred times before: > we’re becoming disconnected from nature and that we are on a precipice.

by mmaro 16y ago

Let's try to take apart this muck, which I seem to have read a hundred times before: > we’re becoming disconnected from nature and that we are on a precipice. Why is it bad to be disconnected from nature? What's wrong with going in the opposite direction towards increased artificiality, given that our very artificial infrastructure keeps us alive? > take control over our stewardship of our planet / the planet [...] will be in significant danger What the heck does that actually mean? Can we just admit that these statements are religious, but wrapped in non-religious language? > 70% of species will be extinct by the end of this century if we do nothing due to the rise of world temperatures I wish it were as fashionable to care about runaway AIs, nuclear attacks, geologic events, etc.

meric 16y ago
You're not worried the world seems to be shifting under our feet because of us simply doing what it takes to live? If you were a programmer adding an extra feature to an existing system, and after a few days work you realize that 90% of the system has been modified by you in some way or another, won't you be alarmed? In 200 years, many species have been driven to extinction by our activities, entire forests were chopped away, and countries are now sinking due to rising ocean levels "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives, and you're still not worried? It's fine to be "disconnected from nature", as long as everything can keep going the same way, but I don't think they can. Our own artificial infrastructure is like a ponzi scheme, requiring ever increasing amounts of resources to support it. Until you can find a way that it'll support itself without killing everything around it (I'm not exaggerating, your roof is a desert.), it is not sustainable.
- mmaro 16y ago
  I didn't say I'm not worried, I just think it's counterproductive to promote environmentalism in emotional ways. If people think of nearly everything we do as bad, they'll make decisions based on good intentions instead of rational analysis. I don't understand your analogy. Programs are human constructs. The Earth is a chaotic system, with or without us. Do you have any evidence for our infrastructure being a ponzi scheme? (I think it would be hard to find, given that this same infrastructure will probably soon give us fusion power). FYI: deserts are defined by the amount of rainfall they receive, not by whether they have plants or not.
- brc 16y ago
  Sorry but the Maldives is not sinking. They mustn't be too concerned, having just built a new runway. There are several trees that exist just inches above the high tide mark which are at least 50-100 years old. There has been erosion in the Maldives due to changes in use, but erosion != sea level rise. I also challenge anyone to nominate 1 single species made extinct in the past 50 years as a result of climate change. Note that you must be able to attribute the sole or overwhelming cause of extinction to a change in the average temperature, and not through habitat loss, local pollution, overhunting or any other myriad of ways that humans wipe out species. edit:typo seal->sea
  - gaius 16y ago
    I for one would be happy to see more seals in the Maldives ;-)
    - brc 16y ago
      yes, those pesky seal level rises. Fixed now:)
  - meric 16y ago
    habitat loss, local pollution, overhunting or any other myriad of ways that humans wipe out species. Why not? I was challenging your statement: Why is it bad to be disconnected from nature? What's wrong with going in the opposite direction towards increased artificiality, given that our very artificial infrastructure keeps us alive? Bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_threats_to_the_Great_Barrier_Reef http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_threats_to_the_Gr... is an example of destruction of environment around us as we keep doing what we're doing. I don't feel the need to count the species that became extinct due to habitat loss, local pollution, overhunting or any other myriad of ways that humans wipe out species. Keep doing what we're doing and we will screw ourselves, global warming or not.
- WozRocks 16y ago
  It is amazing the amount of nonsense. The Maldives example is a good one. Someone posts some alarmist nonsense making this claim-- completely unsicentific, or a single paper presenting the hypthesis-- and the whole religion accepts it as Absolute Truth. For years people will be using the maldives as an example, and presenting the fact that the sea level isn't going up doesn't do anything to pursuade them. Fear and panic and nonsense sells. Scientific fact does not. The scientific facts are: mars was getting warmer while we were, yet mars has no oil industry, this points to a typical solar cycle as being the root of this hysteria. The planet is actually getting cooler, as is typical when the cycle ends. CO2 is not a threat and is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and thus irrelevant to the planets climate. Really, from a scientific basis, the entire global warming thing is a complete joke. It would be funny, maybe, if it were a deliberate hoax, but it is actually an insidious manipulation scheme to get people to go along with tyranny and global control. The scientific facts are easy to come by, but warmists are absolutely resolute in keeping their minds closed. This is why global warming is best described as a religion.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
superk 16y ago
What the heck does that actually mean? Can we just admit that these statements are religious, but wrapped in non-religious language? It's actually the reverse. The religious view is God gave us the Earth as a kind of fruit to be plucked. Since we go on to live in Heaven for eternity the stewardship of the Earth is sorta in the hands of the Aethists and non-believers...
- regularfry 16y ago
  That's an extremely narrow, Judaeo-Christian view of religion.
  - superk 16y ago
    You're right. But I wanted to reply on the same level as the OP.
    - regularfry 16y ago
      I thought the OP's point was that phrases like "taking control over our stewardship of the planet" was a religious statement in that the only reason the concepts in it have any grounding is through the faith of the person saying them. That's not religion-specific.
      - superk 16y ago
        I don't follow you on the jump from unfounded to religious. Not every statement which does not include a scientific footnote is religious in nature.
        regularfry 16y ago
        We're drifting into semantics here, but it boils down to whether you have to take something on faith or not. Taking anything without a "scientific footnote" as true relies on belief, because it cannot rely on proof. That makes it an article of faith, which is a synonym for religion in the sense I believe the OP used it.

by mmaro 16y ago

meric 16y ago

You're not worried the world seems to be shifting under our feet because of us simply doing what it takes to live? If you were a programmer adding an extra feature to an existing system, and after a few days work you realize that 90% of the system has been modified by you in some way or another, won't you be alarmed? In 200 years, many species have been driven to extinction by our activities, entire forests were chopped away, and countries are now sinking due to rising ocean levels "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives, and you're still not worried? It's fine to be "disconnected from nature", as long as everything can keep going the same way, but I don't think they can. Our own artificial infrastructure is like a ponzi scheme, requiring ever increasing amounts of resources to support it. Until you can find a way that it'll support itself without killing everything around it (I'm not exaggerating, your roof is a desert.), it is not sustainable.

mmaro 16y ago
I didn't say I'm not worried, I just think it's counterproductive to promote environmentalism in emotional ways. If people think of nearly everything we do as bad, they'll make decisions based on good intentions instead of rational analysis. I don't understand your analogy. Programs are human constructs. The Earth is a chaotic system, with or without us. Do you have any evidence for our infrastructure being a ponzi scheme? (I think it would be hard to find, given that this same infrastructure will probably soon give us fusion power). FYI: deserts are defined by the amount of rainfall they receive, not by whether they have plants or not.
brc 16y ago
Sorry but the Maldives is not sinking. They mustn't be too concerned, having just built a new runway. There are several trees that exist just inches above the high tide mark which are at least 50-100 years old. There has been erosion in the Maldives due to changes in use, but erosion != sea level rise. I also challenge anyone to nominate 1 single species made extinct in the past 50 years as a result of climate change. Note that you must be able to attribute the sole or overwhelming cause of extinction to a change in the average temperature, and not through habitat loss, local pollution, overhunting or any other myriad of ways that humans wipe out species. edit:typo seal->sea
- gaius 16y ago
  I for one would be happy to see more seals in the Maldives ;-)
  - brc 16y ago
    yes, those pesky seal level rises. Fixed now:)
- meric 16y ago
  habitat loss, local pollution, overhunting or any other myriad of ways that humans wipe out species. Why not? I was challenging your statement: Why is it bad to be disconnected from nature? What's wrong with going in the opposite direction towards increased artificiality, given that our very artificial infrastructure keeps us alive? Bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_threats_to_the_Great_Barrier_Reef http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_threats_to_the_Gr... is an example of destruction of environment around us as we keep doing what we're doing. I don't feel the need to count the species that became extinct due to habitat loss, local pollution, overhunting or any other myriad of ways that humans wipe out species. Keep doing what we're doing and we will screw ourselves, global warming or not.
WozRocks 16y ago
It is amazing the amount of nonsense. The Maldives example is a good one. Someone posts some alarmist nonsense making this claim-- completely unsicentific, or a single paper presenting the hypthesis-- and the whole religion accepts it as Absolute Truth. For years people will be using the maldives as an example, and presenting the fact that the sea level isn't going up doesn't do anything to pursuade them. Fear and panic and nonsense sells. Scientific fact does not. The scientific facts are: mars was getting warmer while we were, yet mars has no oil industry, this points to a typical solar cycle as being the root of this hysteria. The planet is actually getting cooler, as is typical when the cycle ends. CO2 is not a threat and is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and thus irrelevant to the planets climate. Really, from a scientific basis, the entire global warming thing is a complete joke. It would be funny, maybe, if it were a deliberate hoax, but it is actually an insidious manipulation scheme to get people to go along with tyranny and global control. The scientific facts are easy to come by, but warmists are absolutely resolute in keeping their minds closed. This is why global warming is best described as a religion.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

superk 16y ago

What the heck does that actually mean? Can we just admit that these statements are religious, but wrapped in non-religious language? It's actually the reverse. The religious view is God gave us the Earth as a kind of fruit to be plucked. Since we go on to live in Heaven for eternity the stewardship of the Earth is sorta in the hands of the Aethists and non-believers...

regularfry 16y ago
That's an extremely narrow, Judaeo-Christian view of religion.
- superk 16y ago
  You're right. But I wanted to reply on the same level as the OP.
  - regularfry 16y ago
    I thought the OP's point was that phrases like "taking control over our stewardship of the planet" was a religious statement in that the only reason the concepts in it have any grounding is through the faith of the person saying them. That's not religion-specific.
    - superk 16y ago
      I don't follow you on the jump from unfounded to religious. Not every statement which does not include a scientific footnote is religious in nature.
      - regularfry 16y ago
        We're drifting into semantics here, but it boils down to whether you have to take something on faith or not. Taking anything without a "scientific footnote" as true relies on belief, because it cannot rely on proof. That makes it an article of faith, which is a synonym for religion in the sense I believe the OP used it.