Humans vs. Our Environment

Started by ShinjisLover April 15th, 2009 4:50 PM
  • 967 views
  • 25 replies

ShinjisLover

Seen May 11th, 2016
Posted July 5th, 2010
3,043 posts
14.5 Years
Now, if anyone actually found that title eye-catching, I'd like to elaborate. Do you think humans have destroyed the Earth's environment?

I, personally, think this to be true. For evidence of this, I'd like to present you with this video.



In this video (you don't have to listen to the words if you don't wanna), you'll see all the terrible things that humans have done to the environment. It just goes to show that humans are an unneeded form of life, as all humans have done is wreck the Earth. Regardless of trying to 'make it better', all humans did was make it worse.

Case and point: Pollution. Looking at a city, you can see a large, heavy cloud of smoke form above all of the buildings. This, my friends, is called pollution. It makes the air harder to breathe, causing people with asthma and other breathing problems to cough and choke, making it harder and harder for them to inhale.

Also, oil spills. For some reason, humans thought that oil would be a good resource to have. All it does is cause troubles, especially to those animals that live near or in the water (birds, fish, gulls). Birds will become covered in oil and won't be able to remove it from their feathers, thus they die due to starvation, shock, or other means. Fish are unable to receive oxygen from the water because the oil is covering the top of the water, thus they, too, die due to suffocation or other means.


Now, let's not argue about anything, keep this clean, and have a mature and intelligent debate. Present your sides of the argument clearly and appropriate. Thank you.

Age 30
File Island
Seen May 1st, 2011
Posted March 12th, 2010
692 posts
15.9 Years
Yes, we have done our damage in the past, we still do it now.

But is that the point? We are the dominant species on earth. Do you think that if there was another super intelligent animal that could take advantage of the resources we use that wouldn't? Know, that isn't the nature of life,

As for us being useless and uneeded? Yeah, we are, but what is the point of any life? In the grand scheme of things all life is entirely pointless, but I'm not complaining, I enjoy being alive.

Fossil fules are entirely necissary, corn and wind can't power the world, although, I think nuclear is the perfect power solution, people are just to scared. Seriously, chrynobil was in the soviet union... How well could that have been run?

of course, nuclear can't power our cars and trains, everytime there was a car acident it would be like dropping a nuke.

Now, global warming. It's natural, the glaciers were melting before anybody cared. Looking at layers of ice has showed it happened before. how do you think giant reptiles survived the winter in Minnesota? They didn't dig a hole and hybernate!

Diamond
fc-2879-1926-9888
PLATINUM fc-0860-9246-7760

ShinjisLover

Seen May 11th, 2016
Posted July 5th, 2010
3,043 posts
14.5 Years
Now, global warming. It's natural,
No it most certainly is not. Humans have caused global warming and, before we knew it, we had found out why the glaciers where melting: Humans. Due to the intense pollution we've created on Earth, this has also rapidly increased the time that the glaciers melt. And glaciers are wondrous things to behold; strong and gigantic. There is no way that a slight change in climate due to natural causes would make the glaciers melt, especially so rapidly. It was all humans.

As for the 'is there any point in life' thing, I can't help you there. As, yes, there may be no point to life, but it's nothing I was trying to bring up at all.

But is that the point? We are the dominant species on earth.
Says who? Humans? Just because we're the smartest, doesn't mean we're the dominate species. And we most certainly would never be able to hold our own without the use of guns. Even most knives cannot pierce the thick hide of animals. Hell, even guns can't kill a bear with one hit. Yet another unnecessary tool that humans have invented. Going up against a tiger, a human would surely lose. The gun may not kill it, but it might scare it off. Even then, this would only anger the tiger and, when you least expect it, the human is on the ground. Either dead or dying. So, to repeat my thesis, humans are not the dominate species.

Even if humans were, that is no excuse to pollute and destroy the planet we live in. And it never will be an excuse.

Fossil fules are entirely necissary, corn and wind can't power the world,
No, fossil fuels are not necessary. And, in fact, wind is a wonderful tool to power the world with. It's safer and more efficient as well. Solar power is also a resource that we can use. Not only would it be useful, but it's also a resource that never runs out, unlike things like oil and gas.

I think nuclear is the perfect power solution, people are just to scared. Seriously, chrynobil was in the soviet union... How well could that have been run?
All right, you've lost me here. .
Age 30
Male
New York City
Seen May 21st, 2016
Posted May 16th, 2016
3,597 posts
15.9 Years
Now, if anyone actually found that title eye-catching, I'd like to elaborate. Do you think humans have destroyed the Earth's environment?

I, personally, think this to be true. For evidence of this, I'd like to present you with this video.



In this video (you don't have to listen to the words if you don't wanna), you'll see all the terrible things that humans have done to the environment. It just goes to show that humans are an unneeded form of life, as all humans have done is wreck the Earth. Regardless of trying to 'make it better', all humans did was make it worse.

Case and point: Pollution. Looking at a city, you can see a large, heavy cloud of smoke form above all of the buildings. This, my friends, is called pollution. It makes the air harder to breathe, causing people with asthma and other breathing problems to cough and choke, making it harder and harder for them to inhale.

Also, oil spills. For some reason, humans thought that oil would be a good resource to have. All it does is cause troubles, especially to those animals that live near or in the water (birds, fish, gulls). Birds will become covered in oil and won't be able to remove it from their feathers, thus they die due to starvation, shock, or other means. Fish are unable to receive oxygen from the water because the oil is covering the top of the water, thus they, too, die due to suffocation or other means.


Now, let's not argue about anything, keep this clean, and have a mature and intelligent debate. Present your sides of the argument clearly and appropriate. Thank you.

Now, now. You are condemning the human species far too much. Out of past necessity, they used many mechanisms which we regret today. However, there can be nothing gained without something lost. With the sacrifices humankind has made in the past, we have built up civilizations, cultures, technology, etc... And to maintain all that they have built up, further sacrifices are necessary. It would be blasphemous to say "just stop everything," since that would basically mean "end everything our race has lived for." Even so, humankind is trying to amend its wrongs and to condemn their efforts as exacerbating would just be admitting that humans really screwed up badly -- which I don't necessarily believe. I understand the concept of "the many suffer for the few to rise," but that is too late to change. The best we can do is cope and try to develop new ways to counteract our misdoings. Constant, idle repentance does absolutely nothing.

As for the question - environment is relative. You could argue that the "destroyed" environment IS Earth's environment. As we are a part of Earth, we are part of the environment; as we change, so will our surroundings.
lurid/lucid

"I want to tear myself from this place, from this reality, rise up like a cloud and float away, melt into this humid summer night and dissolve somewhere far, over the hills. But I am here, my legs blocks of concrete, my lungs empty of air, my throat burning. There will be no floating away."

Khaled Hosseini

→ Refresh for a different picture
→ White FC: Haruka 0347 0171 1756


whoever disabled my signature:
my signature is not even close to 300px tall.
i dont understand why it was disabled.

Sounds

Attrapez les tous!

Age 28
Male
New York
Seen June 5th, 2016
Posted May 6th, 2010
1,076 posts
15 Years
Now, now. You are condemning the human species far too much. Out of past necessity, they used many mechanisms which we regret today. However, there can be nothing gained without something lost. With the sacrifices humankind has made in the past, we have built up civilizations, cultures, technology, etc... And to maintain all that they have built up, further sacrifices are necessary. It would be blasphemous to say "just stop everything," since that would basically mean "end everything our race has lived for." Even so, humankind is trying to amend its wrongs and to condemn their efforts as exacerbating would just be admitting that humans really screwed up badly -- which I don't necessarily believe. I understand the concept of "the many suffer for the few to rise," but that is too late to change. The best we can do is cope and try to develop new ways to counteract our misdoings. Constant, idle repentance does absolutely nothing.

As for the question - environment is relative. You could argue that the "destroyed" environment IS Earth's environment. As we are a part of Earth, we are part of the environment; as we change, so will our surroundings.
I agree to all of that, I believe that we made what is our environment today.
Even tough we're part of it, we literally control what seems to be our environment.
Age 30
File Island
Seen May 1st, 2011
Posted March 12th, 2010
692 posts
15.9 Years
Chrynobil was where a nuclear reactor blew up and really started a huge nuclear power scare.

Yes wind and solar is clean, but it isn't enough, believe me, if it would work I would be all for it, I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, by all means, anything to help.

And humans can survive without guns. There are remote tribes all over the world that defend themselves with a stick at best and shun guns.

I won't deny that we make our smog, and I'll awknowledge that it harms our people with breathing problems. But it isn't warming the planet. That is nothing but a theory.
Maybe you should take a trip up north, we have been shattering record lows the past few winters.

Diamond
fc-2879-1926-9888
PLATINUM fc-0860-9246-7760

ShinjisLover

Seen May 11th, 2016
Posted July 5th, 2010
3,043 posts
14.5 Years
No, not once did I say to stop everything. I wasn't saying anything like that at all. What I did say, however, is that the humans are still making our environment worse. You can't just say "oh, we have to cope and make it better" when clearly no effort is being made, especially around corporate companies, to change the Earth at all. Every day, you see another person throwing their trash on the ground, driving a car, and even smoking. All of these factors contribute to everything that has been wrong with our Earth. It wasn't until humans evolved that the Earth started to crumble (evolve as in have bigger brains and think we're all that just because we have hands to make tools when other animals do not).

As for the question - environment is relative. You could argue that the "destroyed" environment IS Earth's environment. As we are a part of Earth, we are part of the environment; as we change, so will our surroundings.
As we change, so will our surroundings. That's a quote that I just can't live with. The world has become so morally corrupt that it's an epidemic. On the streets, you see drug dealers, hit and runs, and much, much more corruption. If we change this way, our Earth will also become corrupt. That's pretty much what you've just said.

Even tough we're part of it, we literally control what seems to be our environment.
We are not the one that control the environment. The population of mammalian, four-legged created have contributed (in a good way) to the environment more than humans have or ever will. If anyone, the credit for all of the lush green forests that have been untouched by the destructive human hands goes to the animals.

Yes wind and solar is clean, but it isn't enough, believe me, if it would work I would be all for it, I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, by all means, anything to help.
Once again, you've lost me. How can you say that we don't have enough wind and sun? There is plenty of these resources and much more resources that we can use without harming the environment.

And humans can survive without guns. There are remote tribes all over the world that defend themselves with a stick at best and shun guns.
Yes, and look how far they've gotten. That's exactly what I've been trying to say: We don't need guns. Even then, though, there are a few more deaths by animal killings in such tribes rather than in urban areas. However, this is only because we've tread onto animal turf.

But it isn't warming the planet. That is nothing but a theory.
No, it isn't warming the planet per say. However, it is proven that such things deplete our ozone layer, which is needed for the Greenhouse effect. Because the ozone layer is becoming depleted due to human activities, the sun is able to emit more UV rays, making temperatures much, much warmer than they should be. Haven't you noticed the increase in temperatures around the world? Many places have gone up as much as 10 degrees. Now, that may not seem like a lot; however, it most certainly is. In fact, it's too much.

Maybe you should take a trip up north, we have been shattering record lows the past few winters.
Excuse me, but I live up north, thank you very much. And, in fact, we've hit records of all time highs. Like the massive heat wave last summer where temperatures rose to 102 degrees (Fahrenheit).
Age 30
Male
New York City
Seen May 21st, 2016
Posted May 16th, 2016
3,597 posts
15.9 Years


No it most certainly is not. Humans have caused global warming and, before we knew it, we had found out why the glaciers where melting: Humans. Due to the intense pollution we've created on Earth, this has also rapidly increased the time that the glaciers melt. And glaciers are wondrous things to behold; strong and gigantic. There is no way that a slight change in climate due to natural causes would make the glaciers melt, especially so rapidly. It was all humans.
To me, glaciers are giant slabs of ice. If they were nearly as strong and gigantic and you wanted them to be, they wouldn't be melting. Instead they'd be running internment camps and plotting intergalactic warfare.

What do you want humankind to do to reverse the problem? Mass time travel doesn't work.

Says who? Humans? Just because we're the smartest, doesn't mean we're the dominate species. And we most certainly would never be able to hold our own without the use of guns. Even most knives cannot pierce the thick hide of animals. Hell, even guns can't kill a bear with one hit. Yet another unnecessary tool that humans have invented. Going up against a tiger, a human would surely lose. The gun may not kill it, but it might scare it off. Even then, this would only anger the tiger and, when you least expect it, the human is on the ground. Either dead or dying. So, to repeat my thesis, humans are not the dominate species.

Even if humans were, that is no excuse to pollute and destroy the planet we live in. And it never will be an excuse.
1. I'd argue that guns were in fact a necessity, but that is a different thread for a different time. Of course, activities like game hunting and murder are idiotic.
2. Guns and knives are as human as it gets. The fact that humans can wield them and bears can't displays superiority in itself. A cockroach cannot beat a bear in combat either, but there are a lot more cockroaches than bears. On the other hand, bacteria can easily tear up a bear from the inside while the bear is helpless to defend itself. Disease is another thing.
3. Humans don't aim to destroy the Earth. That is what you are making it sound like.

No, fossil fuels are not necessary. And, in fact, wind is a wonderful tool to power the world with. It's safer and more efficient as well. Solar power is also a resource that we can use. Not only would it be useful, but it's also a resource that never runs out, unlike things like oil and gas.
No wind or no sun = no power = crash.

All right, you've lost me here. .[/center][/COLOR]
I agree. No idea what they meant with the Chernobyl thing.
lurid/lucid

"I want to tear myself from this place, from this reality, rise up like a cloud and float away, melt into this humid summer night and dissolve somewhere far, over the hills. But I am here, my legs blocks of concrete, my lungs empty of air, my throat burning. There will be no floating away."

Khaled Hosseini

→ Refresh for a different picture
→ White FC: Haruka 0347 0171 1756


whoever disabled my signature:
my signature is not even close to 300px tall.
i dont understand why it was disabled.

ShinjisLover

Seen May 11th, 2016
Posted July 5th, 2010
3,043 posts
14.5 Years
If they were nearly as strong and gigantic and you wanted them to be, they wouldn't be melting.
They are strong and gigantic: Fact. However, as I've said, humans have increased temperatures by up to 10 degrees. This is too much. The Polar Bears and Penguins are dying in the Arctic and many, many people in the tropics are becoming overheated. So don't try to blame this on anyone or anything else but the humans. It's already a fact.

What do you want humankind to do to reverse the problem? Mass time travel doesn't work.
Now you're simply being snarky. I've already said this once and I'm tired of repeating it: Humans are not going to change so easily. It is actually up to people with some common sense to get humans to change their destructive ways. But people that think we can't do anything but cope seem to hold all of the way we can change back. And believe me, there are many, many ways humans can change the world to make it better. We've just become so accustomed to unneeded things (like cars and the like) that we just believe there's no better way to live.

1. I'd argue that guns were in fact a necessity, but that is a different thread for a different time. Of course, activities like game hunting and murder are idiotic.
2. Guns and knives are as human as it gets. The fact that humans can wield them and bears can't displays superiority in itself. A cockroach cannot beat a bear in combat either, but there are a lot more cockroaches than bears. On the other hand, bacteria can easily tear up a bear from the inside while the bear is helpless to defend itself. Disease is another thing.
3. Humans don't aim to destroy the Earth. That is what you are making it sound like.
1) You can aruge that guns are a necessity, but, as you've just stated, this brings up things like murdering and big game hunting. Making them something that shouldn't have been invented in the first place.
2) So you're saying that just because we can hold guns, that makes us superior? It's hard to comprehend how you've managed to say that, especially since it isn't true. Nor did I ever say that bears were the superior species. Brains do not mean that we're superior.
3) Then you've obviously misread me.

No wind or no sun = no power = crash.
Problem: There will always be wind and sun. The only time that there wouldn't be sun is at night (even then, the moon always provides light). However, even now with electric power, the electricity goes out, correct? Same thing.

I agree. No idea what they meant with the Chernobyl thing.
I don't even know about the Soviet Union in general. I am not into things like that, nor do they matter much to me at all.
Age 30
Male
New York City
Seen May 21st, 2016
Posted May 16th, 2016
3,597 posts
15.9 Years
No, not once did I say to stop everything. I wasn't saying anything like that at all. What I did say, however, is that the humans are still making our environment worse. You can't just say "oh, we have to cope and make it better" when clearly no effort is being made, especially around corporate companies, to change the Earth at all. Every day, you see another person throwing their trash on the ground, driving a car, and even smoking. All of these factors contribute to everything that has been wrong with our Earth. It wasn't until humans evolved that the Earth started to crumble (evolve as in have bigger brains and think we're all that just because we have hands to make tools when other animals do not).
You can't say that absolutely nothing is being done. You posting here is an effort in itself to spread awareness.

Then what makes you different from litterers, polluters, and smokers? You are human too. You can't judge the aspects of the entire race by the actions of some. That's the pessimistic attitude that makes people lose hope in salvation in the first place. As long as there are some, even a minority, there can be change.

Also, I don't like this "evolve" thing. As it is, we are still evolving - both physically and mentally. Slowly the races are homogenizing and the people are adapting to the environment. If you want humankind to stop evolving, then become an advocate of cloning.

As we change, so will our surroundings. That's a quote that I just can't live with. The world has become so morally corrupt that it's an epidemic. On the streets, you see drug dealers, hit and runs, and much, much more corruption. If we change this way, our Earth will also become corrupt. That's pretty much what you've just said.
Are we talking about morals or the environment? At first I thought we were discussing the matter of air, water, pollution, energy, etc.

That is why there are dedicated people against crime. Crime rates aren't necessarily going up or down.

We are not the one that control the environment. The population of mammalian, four-legged created have contributed (in a good way) to the environment more than humans have or ever will. If anyone, the credit for all of the lush green forests that have been untouched by the destructive human hands goes to the animals.
And naturally destroyed lands have also been repaired by those same "destructive" hands.

Mammals, not barring humans, do squat for the environment. They seek only to destroy and sustain their own life. They greedily battle their own race for superiority and kill other animals. Did you know that when an alpha male lion defeats another tribe, he proceeds to eat all of the other tribe's cubs and then rapes all the females to ensure he is the superior one?

Did you know that orcas capture baby sea lions on the shore and wrangle them until they are unconscious, then swim out to sea with them in order to throw them meters into the air as sport? Sure they aren't 4-legged, but they are just as savage as the lion.

What about the methane produced from the cow's diet?

Though, I can agree that plants and bacteria have contributed much, much more to the ecosystem than humans have. Plants give life to our mammalian friends (and of course, the other ones which you neglected to mention too, but apparently they played no role in creating the environment). By contrast, bacteria are responsible for weeding out all of the weaker tribes. Call me Devil's advocate, but those species would have died out anyway if they couldn't even fight off a single-celled killing-machine.

Once again, you've lost me. How can you say that we don't have enough wind and sun? There is plenty of these resources and much more resources that we can use without harming the environment.
Oh, by the way. We don't spill oil out into the ocean as a goal. Oil spills aren't really a direct use of resources to harm the environment.

Yes, and look how far they've gotten. That's exactly what I've been trying to say: We don't need guns. Even then, though, there are a few more deaths by animal killings in such tribes rather than in urban areas. However, this is only because we've tread onto animal turf.
Humans haven't "tread" on to anyone's turf but their own. The Earth belongs to them as much as it belongs to the animals. Humans are animals and therefore have the same rights as our furred, scaled, winged, tailed, eight-legged, single-celled, spiked, amphibious buddies.

And yes, "look how far they've gotten." In your perspective, great. Life. Happy. In reality, nowhere at all. Devil's advocate again, but "sticks-and-stones" really gets nowhere. Instead, it enforces the idea of clinging to the past and rejecting the future. The world is changing, even without human interference. Denial doesn't change that.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

This is two posts. This is where the second post begins.


They are strong and gigantic: Fact. However, as I've said, humans have increased temperatures by up to 10 degrees. This is too much. The Polar Bears and Penguins are dying in the Arctic and many, many people in the tropics are becoming overheated. So don't try to blame this on anyone or anything else but the humans. It's already a fact.
I don't know how to respond to your statement simply because it is so pessimistic. Fine, I'll admit that it was solely the fault of humankind, but what does that do for our chilly, crystallized buddies?

Now you're simply being snarky. I've already said this once and I'm tired of repeating it: Humans are not going to change so easily. It is actually up to people with some common sense to get humans to change their destructive ways. But people that think we can't do anything but cope seem to hold all of the way we can change back. And believe me, there are many, many ways humans can change the world to make it better. We've just become so accustomed to unneeded things (like cars and the like) that we just believe there's no better way to live.
I guess I am just snarky by nature.

Hey, I never said "cope" and the end. I said "cope and develop." The latter word is more important than the former.

Plus, at the current state, there IS no better way to live. If you want to pull a Thoreau on us, then go ahead, but asking the entire world to live in a word devoid of technology would just be insane.

1) You can aruge that guns are a necessity, but, as you've just stated, this brings up things like murdering and big game hunting. Making them something that shouldn't have been invented in the first place.
2) So you're saying that just because we can hold guns, that makes us superior? It's hard to comprehend how you've managed to say that, especially since it isn't true. Nor did I ever say that bears were the superior species. Brains do not mean that we're superior.
3) Then you've obviously misread me.
1. The ends don't refute the means. Guns were necessary as an innovation and nothing else. You can argue that electricity was unnecessary as it fostered the Earth-destroying industry. By contrast, electricity also powers the computer which you type on now. The same goes for stuff like love and thought. If love didn't exist, we wouldn't have hate. If thought didn't exist, we wouldn't have greed or lust. But what are humans without love or thought?
2. Just because we can eat with forks, because we can tell red from blue and right from wrong. Hell, just because we can harness the environment and they cannot. Technically, brains DO mean we are superior. Bears simply don't have them and therefore cannot function at the same capacity as man.

3. Then you obviously haven't been clear enough. You sound pretty much like you think humans are only here to destroy the planet and they are using their superiority as an excuse.
Quote you:
"Even if humans were, that is no excuse to pollute and destroy the planet we live in. And it never will be an excuse."

Problem: There will always be wind and sun. The only time that there wouldn't be sun is at night (even then, the moon always provides light). However, even now with electric power, the electricity goes out, correct? Same thing.
Solar and wind power basically is electrical power, just in a different form. Same thing.

I don't even know about the Soviet Union in general. I am not into things like that, nor do they matter much to me at all.[/center][/COLOR]
Apparently, you are, as Chernobyl was one of the largest energy-related crises in history.
lurid/lucid

"I want to tear myself from this place, from this reality, rise up like a cloud and float away, melt into this humid summer night and dissolve somewhere far, over the hills. But I am here, my legs blocks of concrete, my lungs empty of air, my throat burning. There will be no floating away."

Khaled Hosseini

→ Refresh for a different picture
→ White FC: Haruka 0347 0171 1756


whoever disabled my signature:
my signature is not even close to 300px tall.
i dont understand why it was disabled.

Unforgettable

Melodies of Life

Male
Kentucky
Seen January 3rd, 2013
Posted January 3rd, 2013
1,620 posts
15.2 Years
Well. I am the number one tree hugger let's save the earth person out there. But really. There is nothing we can do about humans being on earth. Yes, we have destoryed it. But no need in being upset and angry about it. Do what you can to help. Use canvas bags, recycle, tell others, don't waste, etc. It's the best you can do.

Remember the way I was, for me.
Age 29
Seen November 5th, 2017
Posted November 5th, 2017
3,499 posts
14.9 Years
The only thing that I hate about oil spills is the waste of oil and the amount of resources and time we have to spend cleaning up our mess. TBH I don't care about a load of fish and birds dying, the only thing I regret about the fish dying is that we could've eaten them.

The Earth is still warming up from the Ice Age, global warming is no big threat to us yet; seeing as most of the major countries are now looking towards alternative energy sources rather than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear) then it needn't be a problem in the future. Unfortunatly with nuclear power stations we then have nuclear waste to deal with. Using solar and wind power is a nice idea as it dosn't have any waste products and there is no risk involved, but it just isn't efficient enough to meet our energy needs.
Chernobyl showed how a nuclear power station can turn in to a catastrophe, if there are going to be a lot more nuclear stations around then there had better be very strict regulations to ensure nothing like that ever happens again. Of course it's not the ideal solution, they are very expensive and carry a terrible risk, but it can (and probably will) be a temporary solution to our energy needs for the next 30 years or so.

Age 30
Male
New York City
Seen May 21st, 2016
Posted May 16th, 2016
3,597 posts
15.9 Years
GOOD GOD PEOPLE YOU ARE NOT WRITING A NOVEL

Yes, of course we've been the major impact in the deterioration of our environment. It's not like animals started littering and polluting the air (... oh you know what I mean).
This is also not an OVP thread <3

It would be unfair to say that animals have not had any negative impact on environments already. Some organisms, large or small, are responsible for the deaths of entire communities through infestation, attacks, spread of disease, etc.

I am not saying that humans played no role, but everyone seems to think that cute furry animals are just so innocent that they could possibly do no wrong.
lurid/lucid

"I want to tear myself from this place, from this reality, rise up like a cloud and float away, melt into this humid summer night and dissolve somewhere far, over the hills. But I am here, my legs blocks of concrete, my lungs empty of air, my throat burning. There will be no floating away."

Khaled Hosseini

→ Refresh for a different picture
→ White FC: Haruka 0347 0171 1756


whoever disabled my signature:
my signature is not even close to 300px tall.
i dont understand why it was disabled.

Azonic

hello friends

Age 10
Male
stranger danger
Seen June 4th, 2018
Posted May 4th, 2018
7,123 posts
15.9 Years
This is also not an OVP thread <3

It would be unfair to say that animals have not had any negative impact on environments already. Some organisms, large or small, are responsible for the deaths of entire communities through infestation, attacks, spread of disease, etc.

I am not saying that humans played no role, but everyone seems to think that cute furry animals are just so innocent that they could possibly do no wrong.
Never said animals had no impact on the environment. Of course they did.

I'm just saying that humans definitely had the largest impact when it comes to the deterioration of our environment.

Michii

as in Mishy

Age 28
Female
United States
Seen January 1st, 2012
Posted January 22nd, 2010
1,321 posts
15.4 Years
I have to side more with the uber eco friendly posters.

We're harming the environment. All of the technology we use is basically causing the destruction of our future. Sure, global warming is natural, but to what extent? Do we really know what the boundary is from natural to us taking the blame? In reality, we don't, and therefore we shouldn't just depend on the fact that our Earth is already in a warming process.

Ever heard of the documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth?" Watching it a couple years ago made me see how important the environment and global warming is. We as human beings have brought ourselves to a halt. We're using our technology way too frequently, without realizing how harmful it is to the atmosphere. Think of the millions of cars on the road every single day, and how much CO2 they're admitting. All of that just sits up in the atmosphere, slowly warming our earth (greeeeenhouse effect). Sure, we do need our cars and technology in general to a certain extent, but we're becoming too dependent on them.

Point is, we do play a role in almost everything that's happening to our world on an environmental scale, whether it be directly or indirectly. We don't see that just because we're ok now, doesn't mean we'll be fine in the future. Sure, the sea could raise twenty feet in the next century, the polar bears will die off, and the world's average temperature will raise several degrees, but what do we care? It's not happening now right? We'll just worry about that when our planet is off balance.

I'm not saying that we should all go buy smart cars and figure out how corn drives cars. I'm not trying to have people shut down all of their electricity in the house, travel by bike everywhere, and shut down our factories. But what I am saying is that we are at fault, and not enough people are realizing that. This is our only home, and there's no escape. No safe place to live when things go wrong. We should see that and work towards a brighter future. =)

It's been long but we can do it; let's make this our dream

Look to tomorrow because it's all we have. Turn up the music until the walls shake. What do we have?
Is it hope? Love? Is it nothing at all? We won't know at all until we make something of what we feel.
When that happens, we'll find the truth. We'll find what we want. And we will find ourselves, finally.

Seen May 24th, 2009
Posted May 23rd, 2009
129 posts
14.2 Years
And to maintain all that they have built up, further sacrifices are necessary. It would be blasphemous to say "just stop everything," since that would basically mean "end everything our race has lived for."
Perhaps everything our race collectively has lived for is not what every individual lives for. Also, I think this is an anthropocentric idea, as if the human race and its collective goals are somehow more important than everything else in the universe.
Age 30
Male
New York City
Seen May 21st, 2016
Posted May 16th, 2016
3,597 posts
15.9 Years
Perhaps everything our race collectively has lived for is not what every individual lives for. Also, I think this is an anthropocentric idea, as if the human race and its collective goals are somehow more important than everything else in the universe.
It's not as human-centered as you'd think. Ultimately, humankind will fade away and their influence will have had no effect on the entire world. Compared to the universe, we are merely a bad strain of bacteria that just won't go away. If technology facilitates the survival of mankind, how does that differ from say a bacterium transforming foreign DNA in order to grow resistant to the immune system? Life is complex because it is solely a greedy process of self-subsistence, yet houses some of the most unexplainable phenomena.

On a smaller scale, sure the concept sacrifices the Earth for the betterment of mankind, but isn't that what evolution is all about? The Earth has more or less been tamed by humankind. Humans have defied nature in so many ways -- from saving lives during a storm or wildfire or suppressing the growth and re-population of wildlife. Organisms themselves have adapted to conquer the seas and skies, and even other organisms. Organisms live only to live. How does that make our technological advances any different from an adaptation? How does that make us any different from another organism?
lurid/lucid

"I want to tear myself from this place, from this reality, rise up like a cloud and float away, melt into this humid summer night and dissolve somewhere far, over the hills. But I am here, my legs blocks of concrete, my lungs empty of air, my throat burning. There will be no floating away."

Khaled Hosseini

→ Refresh for a different picture
→ White FC: Haruka 0347 0171 1756


whoever disabled my signature:
my signature is not even close to 300px tall.
i dont understand why it was disabled.
Seen May 24th, 2009
Posted May 23rd, 2009
129 posts
14.2 Years
It's not as human-centered as you'd think. Ultimately, humankind will fade away and their influence will have had no effect on the entire world. Compared to the universe, we are merely a bad strain of bacteria that just won't go away. If technology facilitates the survival of mankind, how does that differ from say a bacterium transforming foreign DNA in order to grow resistant to the immune system? Life is complex because it is solely a greedy process of self-subsistence, yet houses some of the most unexplainable phenomena.

On a smaller scale, sure the concept sacrifices the Earth for the betterment of mankind, but isn't that what evolution is all about? The Earth has more or less been tamed by humankind. Humans have defied nature in so many ways -- from saving lives during a storm or wildfire or suppressing the growth and re-population of wildlife. Organisms themselves have adapted to conquer the seas and skies, and even other organisms. Organisms live only to live. How does that make our technological advances any different from an adaptation? How does that make us any different from another organism?
I'm not saying non-human beings have less autonomy than human beings, and I'm not saying that our technology is in a different ontological category from any other sort of adaptation. However, (and this is just a personal preference) I think that justifying the conquest of our planet just because that would be compatible with evolutionary theory is a silly argument. If we really wanted to survive we would keep our habitat healthy and keep the ecosystem intact.

Furthermore, some beings, such as myself, have a quality that enables us to feel compassion. This compassion, for me at least, often extends to non-humans. This might undermine those goals toward which humans strive for that you mentioned (survival and domination of the environment)....

What do I say to that? So be it.
Age 30
Male
New York City
Seen May 21st, 2016
Posted May 16th, 2016
3,597 posts
15.9 Years
I'm not saying non-human beings have less autonomy than human beings, and I'm not saying that our technology is in a different ontological category from any other sort of adaptation. However, (and this is just a personal preference) I think that justifying the conquest of our planet just because that would be compatible with evolutionary theory is a silly argument. If we really wanted to survive we would keep our habitat healthy and keep the ecosystem intact.

Furthermore, some beings, such as myself, have a quality that enables us to feel compassion. This compassion, for me at least, often extends to non-humans. This might undermine those goals toward which humans strive for that you mentioned (survival and domination of the environment)....

What do I say to that? So be it.
We're getting slightly off-topic.

Mmm.. I never said I advocated the "conquest" or "domination" of the planet.
I said that sacrifices are necessary to maintain what we already have. Sure what humankind has done is regrettable, but it can't be denied that we need to use the environment to sustain our technology. I was just stating a fact.

Regarding the "keeping the ecosystem intact" bit, I would argue that the current environment of Earth IS a development made by mankind. Since we've paved roads and dug tunnels where we ought not, it is humankind's duty to maintain the balance between nature and humanity's interference. In that, sustaining our technology is a bilateral effort.
lurid/lucid

"I want to tear myself from this place, from this reality, rise up like a cloud and float away, melt into this humid summer night and dissolve somewhere far, over the hills. But I am here, my legs blocks of concrete, my lungs empty of air, my throat burning. There will be no floating away."

Khaled Hosseini

→ Refresh for a different picture
→ White FC: Haruka 0347 0171 1756


whoever disabled my signature:
my signature is not even close to 300px tall.
i dont understand why it was disabled.
Age 32
Male
Seen May 16th, 2011
Posted October 28th, 2010
5,058 posts
18.4 Years
[CENTER][COLOR=Indigo]Now, if anyone actually found that title eye-catching, I'd like to elaborate. Do you think humans have destroyed the Earth's environment?
I, personally, think this to be true. For evidence of this, I'd like to present you with this video.
You're kidding right? You tried to prove a serious point with a linkin park video?

Try linking us to a scientific study or documentary. The amount of fuel that they probably wasted on planetrips to make this video already makes it a moot point.

Oh and Global warming is natural, what do you think happened to the last ice age? The planet heats up, drops into an ice age then warms up again, then repeats.

.inLOVE

el su bosillo &lt;3

Age 32
Female
Will's bed
Seen September 12th, 2012
Posted May 6th, 2010
1,709 posts
14.7 Years
We've done a good deal of damage, but we haven't yet completely destroyed it. There are now environmental groups, as you may know, that are working to solve these issues.

→ You will be the only one I will ever love