Going Green » Forum Post by foreverserenity

I agree. Small steps will add up to HUGE gains if we all just step in. If only we could convince everyone of that, then things would be better at least in those regards...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Small steps will add up to HUGE gains if we all just step in. If only we could convince everyone of that, then things would be better at least in those regards...

Yes, every little bit helps! Our planet needs it!

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Australia has a pretty good household recycling system. But, like all systems, it is fallible. Some people just can't be bothered, which is a real shame.

In my house, we recycle as much as we can. We also grow vegetables and herbs, conserve water and I'm buying a little pump so we can start reclaiming water from the washing machine to run onto the garden.

As you say, every little bit helps. Good article, again, Donna.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'll "go green" when I live in a city that doesn't try to make it illegal to do so. Frankly, for all the talk, most communities make truly "going green" only possible when leaping through several hurdles.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm buying a little pump so we can start reclaiming water from the washing machine to run onto the garden.[/quote]

That's great Mark!

most communities make truly "going green" only possible when leaping through several hurdles.

I hear ya Gid! It's horrible that the leaders of our communities don't make it easier for it's citizens to do the right thing. Although I've not run into any red tape personally, it's ridiculous to think that would happen!

[quote]Good article, again, Donna.

Thx Mark!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have been hearing about going green for years. I participated in the first Earth Day. I have yet to get a good answer in all these years. what are we saving the planet for? How is going green helping mankind? Is it possible to save the planet? I study science for fun, I like chemistry, biology, and astronomy they are fun to learn and study. What does all this recycling doing for our planet or us? I am not attacking I just want to know how people think, and what they think is really happening with their sacrifice for the planet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have been hearing about going green for years. I participated in the first Earth Day. I have yet to get a good answer in all these years. what are we saving the planet for? How is going green helping mankind? Is it possible to save the planet? I study science for fun, I like chemistry, biology, and astronomy they are fun to learn and study. What does all this recycling doing for our planet or us? I am not attacking I just want to know how people think, and what they think is really happening with their sacrifice for the planet.

You know Paladin, that is a good question. Some people have asked that question and I don't have a learned response (meaning one from a book or something). My thought on this is that our world has changed so much due to population and the improvements we have made to our different societies in order to live comfortably where we are. Some of what we do does affect the earth, environment and all. It diminishes it for some of the Earth's inhabitants, namely our animal friends and of course I've heard of a lot of plants, fishes, wildlife that are dying because of the changes to the Earth. Collecting cans might not do much, but I'm sure it does help in some way. We have to continue to do what we can individually to make our lives better and in doing so hopefully make the Earth better for us to continue to inhabit as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I save water by drinking beer. oh! And I crush and recycle the cans too!

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

what are we saving the planet for? How is going green helping mankind? Is it possible to save the planet?

I would say that we should just try and leave the Earth in no worse of a condition than when we arrived at it. I doubt that we can reverse what we have done, and some of it wouldn't even make sense to reverse (like all the roads and buildings and such). But, as our population grows, if we don't start recycling, we'll run out of room to store all our garbage.

And I crush and recycle the cans too!

Do you use your head for crushing them?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would say that we should just try and leave the Earth in no worse of a condition than when we arrived at it.

That’s easy, all you have to do is pollute the earth as much as possible. I say this only half in jest. Please let me explain. I have been studying science since 1975 as a hobby. The natural state of the planet before man and the animals showed up was not all that nice. 80% nitrogen 15% carbon dioxide 4% sulfur dioxide and 1 % trace elements. Notice that oxygen is not the dominant trace element in the atmosphere. It was not until one celled sea creatures started to pollute the air did things change.
Over the course of several million years they filtered out the carbon and sulfur out of the water which then took more out of the air. They build coral out of the dead organisms this was called coral. The pollution created by this coral killed off all the organisms that thrived on the sulfur dioxide in the air making way for new animals to inhabit the earth. When man starrted walking the earth the atmosphere was roughly 80% nitrogen, 18$ oxygen, 1% carbon and 1% trace. now we are at 19% oxygen, and 1% trace. So the entire span of mankind we have more oxygen than when we frist walked the earth.
We are able to be here because of coral, now to make the earth as good as it was before we got here we would have to kill off every thing that breaths oxygen.
LOL the tree huggers don’t tell you this. Going green is what I find strange. How can we save a planet that does not notice that we are here? How do we make the earth anything good or bad? I mean the earth changes as it wills and has done so at leasst three times that science has been able to uncover. The natural climate is what is right for the earth and we do little to help or hurt the earth. Now we can hurt or help humans by what we do. When corporations polluted the rivers and land we created the EPA and forced the clean up of those lands and rivers, 30 years later it is almost done. So we can make serious changes in things that we did but not alter the climate or stop the extinction of animals on the planet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

now to make the earth as good as it was before we got here we would have to kill off every thing that breaths oxygen.

I meant the individual.

Not everything is about the so called "global warming". Not filling the land with consumer wastes or putting toxic waste into the water and land would be a start.

I don't think that you have to be a "tree hugger" to think that filling the world with garbage that won't compost for hundreds of years is a bad idea.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I meant the individual.

I know, I was taking some fun shots.

Not filling the land with consumer wastes or putting toxic waste into the water and land would be a start.

As I explained before we created the EPA to deal with that in America 30 years ago.

I don't think that you have to be a "tree hugger" to think that filling the world with garbage that won't compost for hundreds of years is a bad idea.

Sorry, but we still have not solved that problem but it won't matter much.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I save water by drinking beer. oh! And I crush and recycle the cans too!

At least you do something Joe!lol!

Not everything is about the so called "global warming". Not filling the land with consumer wastes or putting toxic waste into the water and land would be a start.

I agree Karma, putting our waste in the right areas will be a good start! Many companies still don't follow the rules when it comes to disposal of their wastes!

Successfully updated karma reason!

What, they don't just flush 'em down the toilet like everyone else?

LOL!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Really, in order to achieve a sustainable future, the world needs population controls. But until we can all get over the notion that it is some kind of inherent human right to breed, "going green" can preserve what we have and maybe make it last just a little bit longer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Really, in order to achieve a sustainable future, the world needs population controls. But until we can all get over the notion that it is some kind of inherent human right to breed, "going green" can preserve what we have and maybe make it last just a little bit longer.

Please explain what you mean. All animals breed, are you suggesting that humans don't have the same right as all other living creatures?

What do you mean by sustainable future?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Please explain what you mean. All animals breed, are you suggesting that humans don't have the same right as all other living creatures?

What do you mean by sustainable future?

Not all animals breed. Many animals die before they can accomplish that. Human beings are very successful as a species. Modern medicine, nutrition, and lifestyles mean that people, on average, live a long time, giving everyone plenty of opportunity to breed. For example, some people theorize that bad eyesight is a recent phenonmenon. Ancestors carrying the trait would have been at a serious disadvantage. But glasses fix that.

People with genetic diseases (eyesight is a little extreme) should not be allowed to reproduce as much simply because they are able to reproduce as much. One child for the most severe of cases would be fine. If you have a dominant p53 mutation, for instance, you should be able to have only one surviving child.

Our population is growing exponentially, and the problem must be remedied fast. The world's carrying capacity cannot currently support a population of 20 billion. Like Malthus predicted a long time ago (before the agricultural revolution), we are heading for disaster once more, this time at the limits of human potential. Our minds will be tested, and it is arrogant to believe we will prevail over nature once again.

P.S. Obviously the controversial point is, "Who decides who can have how many children." But I think that some kind of legal consensus could be reached. Even fairly fit individuals should not be able to reproduce like rabbits.

The point is that it is simply irresponsible to have more children than the world can handle.

[edit: the population problem is greater in developing countries. the genetics problem is greater here. fecundity in the US is already fairly low.]

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not all animals breed. Many animals die before they can accomplish that. Human beings are very successful as a species. Modern medicine, nutrition, and lifestyles mean that people, on average, live a long time, giving everyone plenty of opportunity to breed. For example, some people theorize that bad eyesight is a recent phenonmenon. Ancestors carrying the trait would have been at a serious disadvantage. But glasses fix that.

People with genetic diseases (eyesight is a little extreme) should not be allowed to reproduce as much simply because they are able to reproduce as much. One child for the most severe of cases would be fine. If you have a dominant p53 mutation, for instance, you should be able to have only one surviving child.

Our population is growing exponentially, and the problem must be remedied fast. The world's carrying capacity cannot currently support a population of 20 billion. Like Malthus predicted a long time ago (before the agricultural revolution), we are heading for disaster once more, this time at the limits of human potential. Our minds will be tested, and it is arrogant to believe we will prevail over nature once again.

I remember this argument in the 1970’s when ZPG was the buzz word. We were heading towards 3 billion people and the Earth could not sustain all of us. There will be mass starvation and horror that could easily be avoided if we stop breeding. Well we are at 6 billion and counting see any mass starvation?

Before ZPG there was Planned Parenthood. And before that was Adolf Hitler with is final solution. Before that was eugenics funny all of those things are supported by the democrat party. This makes me wonder.

The point is that it is simply irresponsible to have more children than the world can handle.

How much can the world handle?

Successfully updated karma reason!

How much can the world handle?

Let's find out.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Let's find out.

Based on your answer you are not serious. You advocate reducing the population by draconian means with the goal of saving the world or some such silliness and you don’t even know how many is too many. Lets not put you in charge of any nursing homes okay.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Based on your answer you are not serious. You advocate reducing the population by draconian means with the goal of saving the world or some such silliness and you don’t even know how many is too many. Lets not put you in charge of any nursing homes okay.

Ok. To give you a number, I would say the world can support about 10 billion people. But that would mean a pretty cruddy life. Anyway, the problem in developed countries isn't really a population problem; its the problem that anyone can succeed. Developing countries account for most of the population problem. And who cares about them? You might think that is harsh. But just wait until you have to choose between feeding some poor African children and buying that new tivo unit. Suddenly, its "their" problem, not yours.

Developed countries already reduce their population, by non-draconian means. That's not my chief point, although it certainly is an issue.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ok. To give you a number, I would say the world can support about 10 billion people.

The problem is I have heard this argument before, back when the population was hitting 3 billion. The Earth can not sustain three billion people, I was told. We had to cut down the population and since the developed nations are better equipped we should be the ones to reduce our population in order to lead the way to a better life.

You might think that is harsh. But just wait until you have to choose between feeding some poor African children and buying that new tivo unit. Suddenly, its "their" problem, not yours.

I do not think it harsh to contemplate I just don’t see it happening in my lifetime or that of my grandchildren. America has always helped out its friends and enemies alike in times of need and most times to the detriment of our own people, but we did what was right rather than what was best for us.

Developed countries already reduce their population, by non-draconian means. That's not my chief point, although it certainly is an issue.

Yes, one that is foolish when it comes to the strength and security of our nation. We kill off out children and replace the loss with immigrants that have no stake in the success of this nation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem is I have heard this argument before, back when the population was hitting 3 billion. The Earth can not sustain three billion people, I was told. We had to cut down the population and since the developed nations are better equipped we should be the ones to reduce our population in order to lead the way to a better life.

See, this is why I didn't want to give a number. As soon as I do, I get the infinite human potential argument in return.

I do not think it harsh to contemplate I just don’t see it happening in my lifetime or that of my grandchildren. America has always helped out its friends and enemies alike in times of need and most times to the detriment of our own people, but we did what was right rather than what was best for us.

I don't know what to say except that I disagree. America only does what is best for America. There are a couple minor exceptions. For example, our country's religious beliefs lead us to make certain illgical decisions re
garding the Middle East. I am talking more about Israel than the Arabs, by the way.

Yes, one that is foolish when it comes to the strength and security of our nation. We kill off out children and replace the loss with immigrants that have no stake in the success of this nation.

Please... No one is going to attack us. No one wants to risk nuclear war, which is probably an inevitability that makes everything else unimportant. People have a bad habit of lickn' the wurld as good as they can.

Successfully updated karma reason!

See, this is why I didn't want to give a number. As soon as I do, I get the infinite human potential argument in return.

Oh, you mean the fact that we have been hearing this tired argument for 30 years and have not seen the dire results that have been predicted. That is not an infinite human potential it is a fact that has disproved your theory.

I don't know what to say except that I disagree. America only does what is best for America. There are a couple minor exceptions. For example, our country's religious beliefs lead us to make certain illgical decisions regarding the Middle East. I am talking more about Israel than the Arabs, by the way.

The UN wanted the USA to guarantee the new Israeli since no one in Europe wanted to have anything to do with the Jews so they could get oil from the Arab states. It did not help them but they still support the Arabs more each day. They still have unrest and now they are being over populated by Arab immigrants that are voting as a block changing the secular laws to follow certain religious laws. You know the thing you say is bad when Americans try to do it.

Please... No one is going to attack us. No one wants to risk nuclear war, which is probably an inevitability that makes everything else unimportant. People have a bad habit of lickn' the wurld as good as they can.

Okay, you seem out of touch. I vaguely remember being attacked on September 11 2001, I also remember being attacked for 30 years before that. When people attack and kill Americans after they have declared war on America and we have yet to nuke them. Are you suggesting that the attacks we have suffered and the deaths of Americans over the past 30 years is unimportant or irrelevant?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Okay, you seem out of touch. I vaguely remember being attacked on September 11 2001, I also remember being attacked for 30 years before that. When people attack and kill Americans after they have declared war on America and we have yet to nuke them. Are you suggesting that the attacks we have suffered and the deaths of Americans over the past 30 years is unimportant or irrelevant?

No balanced power has attacked us, and when was the last time a formal power attacked us?

Successfully updated karma reason!