Re: Save the planet? Right...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Topanga Talk ]

Posted by observer on 14:22:37 06/28/09

In Reply to: Re: Save the planet? Right... posted by James

: : : Don't worry about it. Our little planet will be around long after humans are gone.
: :
: : Maybe yes, maybe no. What happens after humans are gone is not knowable in any human terms.
: :
: : What IS knowable is that we have a choice. We can choose to live in such a way as to encourage conditions for life, human and otherwise, or we can choose to live in ways that diminish the potential for life as we know it. Which do you think is the more responsible choice?
:
: Ahh, well, now that is philosophy. If that future cannot be foretold, then all these environmental laws we are trying to make are pointless.

I never said the future can't be foretold. I simply said that there is no way to know (and no point in pretending to know) the nature of the world/universe post human existence. And there is no logical connection between the postulate, that the future cannot be foretold, and your 'conclusion' that therefore environmental laws are pointless. Please explain that logical leap.

:
: Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. When people say "Save the planet" they are referring to keeping our climatic current environment pretty much as it is (not withstanding the fact that our current climate is not special, or "balanced" or in any way particularly "harmonius".

What other people refer to and what you think they refer to may well be very different things. As you say, climatic current environment is probably a large part of it. But I know lots of scientists who happen to think that the content (both organic and inorganic) of our oceans is every bit the threat to life as we know it as is the content of the atmosphere (and its influence on climate).

:
: What I was saying is that this big rocky body we call Earth will not suffer in any major way from the machinations of men. We might disturb the surface scum a little but the rest of the planet will hardly notice. Mankind can not produce enough energy to "destroy the planet" Never.

(You didn't initially say "from the machinations of men", nevertheless) the "surface scum" especially if you include the oceans is where well over 99% of organic matter exists. So, while messing around with the scum might not be much in terms of planetary mass, it is virtually everything in terms of life on the planet.

And as to the "harmonious" part, it is a virtual tautology to say that the historic development of our climate is congruently "harmonious" with the development of life on this planet. Given that undeniable fact, maybe what people mean by saving the planet is to not contribute to unprecedented changes. And given the direct connection of climate as a support structure for life, I have no idea what you mean by saying that our current climate isn't special, balanced or harmonious. Please explain.
:
: Take all the nukes we have and set them off at once and the old globe might twitch, then keep on spinning. Knock Earth out of orbit you say? Ha! Do the arithmetic and you'll see why that is impossible.
:
: I believe in protecting our environment but I don't believe global warming has much to do with mankind.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the objective measurements that concern the scientific community. The changes, and especially the RATE of change, in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 now taking place are unprecedented. That means it's never, ever happened before in all of measurable history. We DO know that mankind is contributing to that increase. And we DO know the effects of increased concentrations of CO2 on global warming historically. If it is not reasonable to extrapolate those effects at historically known levels into greater similar effects under these unprecedented conditions, please explain why.
:
: As for being "responsible", by whose standards to you define "responsible"?

By the only standards that we can know, human centric ones, the same standards the context of your original post unwittingly and naively pretends to ignore.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comments:	: : : : Don't worry about it. Our little planet will be around long after humans are gone. : : : : : : Maybe yes, maybe no. What happens after humans are gone is not knowable in any human terms. : : : : : : What IS knowable is that we have a choice. We can choose to live in such a way as to encourage conditions for life, human and otherwise, or we can choose to live in ways that diminish the potential for life as we know it. Which do you think is the more responsible choice? : : : : Ahh, well, now that is philosophy. If that future cannot be foretold, then all these environmental laws we are trying to make are pointless. : : I never said the future can't be foretold. I simply said that there is no way to know (and no point in pretending to know) the nature of the world/universe post human existence. And there is no logical connection between the postulate, that the future cannot be foretold, and your 'conclusion' that therefore environmental laws are pointless. Please explain that logical leap. : : : : : Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. When people say "Save the planet" they are referring to keeping our climatic current environment pretty much as it is (not withstanding the fact that our current climate is not special, or "balanced" or in any way particularly "harmonius". : : What other people refer to and what you think they refer to may well be very different things. As you say, climatic current environment is probably a large part of it. But I know lots of scientists who happen to think that the content (both organic and inorganic) of our oceans is every bit the threat to life as we know it as is the content of the atmosphere (and its influence on climate). : : : : : What I was saying is that this big rocky body we call Earth will not suffer in any major way from the machinations of men. We might disturb the surface scum a little but the rest of the planet will hardly notice. Mankind can not produce enough energy to "destroy the planet" Never. : : (You didn't initially say "from the machinations of men", nevertheless) the "surface scum" especially if you include the oceans is where well over 99% of organic matter exists. So, while messing around with the scum might not be much in terms of planetary mass, it is virtually everything in terms of life on the planet. : : And as to the "harmonious" part, it is a virtual tautology to say that the historic development of our climate is congruently "harmonious" with the development of life on this planet. Given that undeniable fact, maybe what people mean by saving the planet is to not contribute to unprecedented changes. And given the direct connection of climate as a support structure for life, I have no idea what you mean by saying that our current climate isn't special, balanced or harmonious. Please explain. : : : : Take all the nukes we have and set them off at once and the old globe might twitch, then keep on spinning. Knock Earth out of orbit you say? Ha! Do the arithmetic and you'll see why that is impossible. : : : : I believe in protecting our environment but I don't believe global warming has much to do with mankind. : : Then you haven't been paying attention to the objective measurements that concern the scientific community. The changes, and especially the RATE of change, in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 now taking place are unprecedented. That means it's never, ever happened before in all of measurable history. We DO know that mankind is contributing to that increase. And we DO know the effects of increased concentrations of CO2 on global warming historically. If it is not reasonable to extrapolate those effects at historically known levels into greater similar effects under these unprecedented conditions, please explain why. : : : : As for being "responsible", by whose standards to you define "responsible"? : : By the only standards that we can know, human centric ones, the same standards the context of your original post unwittingly and naively pretends to ignore. :

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Topanga Talk ]