News Biggest Eco disaster ever!

[rynnor]

Dinosaurs are still around however - they're called birds.

Erm - no - thats not actually true - birds may have evolved from dinosaur ancestors but thats like saying humans are fish because we evolved from them millions of years ago?

The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is definately not proven - Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

 

[MYstIC G]

Let them all die, this will lead to mass starvation in france which = win

 

[Scouse]

You're asking should we behave in a Darwinian manner, or a moral manner. I don't think the two are separable.

Absolutely they are separable. Quite obviously so.

As a species, we do whatever suits us first, and everything else can come second. That's no different to any other species.

As a species, because of our developed intellectual capacity, we are in the enviable position of being able to identify different choices and CHOOSE different paths.

From the above you obviously think it's OK for us to choose to act like uncaring wankers. I don't.

 

[Tom]

From the above you obviously think it's OK for us to choose to act like uncaring wankers. I don't.

No I don't, and I resent the implication.

 

[Scouse]

No I don't, and I resent the implication.

Jeesus. Everyone's touchy at the moment!

Sorry for throwing in a "wanker" - but I thought it was in keeping with your rather, shall we say, "cavalier" attitude to the mass extinctions we're causing.

However, I'm sticking by what I said Tom. Tho I'll try saying it a different way:

As a species, we do whatever suits us first, and everything else can come second.

It's hard to take that any other way eh?

We were discussing how we, unlike other species, have a choice to treat other life/the environment better. You seem fine with everything else coming second?

When it comes to how we treat other life-forms, that is uncaring.

Tell me how I'm getting the wrong message from you, and I'll apologise. Otherwise, I'll take your point at face value? I mean, your opinions on this seem to be in keeping with your views on global warming and other man-made phenomena, so I think I'm pretty on-message.

Does anybody else have a comment on this? Have my English comprehension skills gone through the floor and I'm actually giving Tom a hard time over nothing?

That's no different to any other species.

We are different to any other species.

Do you think the fact that a high percentage of mammals are facing extinction has nothing to do with us? It's arguable that it is "natural selection" - but does that mean we should do nothing about it, even when we know it's our fault?

There's also a pattern to your posting:

Are we responsible for this problem, or is it a naturally-occurring phenomenon? Because if its the latter, then I'm sorry but...bye, Frogs.

Maybe if we could "save" them, regardless of fault, should we not try? We would with other humans. Are we not evolving into more caring creatures?

What we put into rivers today is nothing, nothing compared to what we used to put into them.

Does that mean that all is roses? We didn't clean up our act because the fish were dying, we did it because we were harming ourselves. Does that sit all fine with you?


You were mumping in another thread about the phrase "global-warming deniers". I wonder how much of that is because you feel labelled, because your opinion on the subject stands in stark relief to the large body of evidence we've gathered.

Honestly Tom, for years I think you simply don't care about this sort of shit. I agree with many other of your opinions, but this isn't a picture of you that I've built up over this thread - but over a few years of similar threads...

 

[Zede]

for the first time in the history of the planet, we have the ability to store DNA of every living thing on it. Massive seed banks have existed for years obviously.

I am a firm believer in technology & reckon within 50 years we will be able to bring back any animal from DNA samples that we chose.

God help us if we ever have working flux capacitors, fucking greenies would be bring back all sorts of shit to be "saved".

take dna, frogs will all be dead though, for now.

 

[Tom]

We were discussing how we, unlike other species, have a choice to treat other life/the environment better. You seem fine with everything else coming second?

I'm absolutely fine with it, because I'd be a hypocrite if I said I wasn't. Of course I don't drop litter (except chucking food into bushes etc), but if its a choice between my nice warm house, and the lesser-spotted fruitbat of Flixton, well sorry bat but you're history.

This is what gets my goat with most people. They're quite happy to espouse how much they care about animals (and nobody loves my cat more than I do), but nearly all of them will put themselves first.

Tell me how I'm getting the wrong message from you, and I'll apologise. Otherwise, I'll take your point at face value? I mean, your opinions on this seem to be in keeping with your views on global warming and other man-made phenomena, so I think I'm pretty on-message.

Its just me being brutally honest. Of course I'm bothered that whales might die off, but will I do anything about it? No. Neither will nearly all the 60-odd million people in this country. They just don't care enough, in just the same way as they couldn't give a shit about the rainforests, or starving people in Africa. Its all tokenism as far as I can see, and only a very few people actually care enough to do anything. Most people are quite selfish, and not in a bad way.

We are different to any other species.

Do you think the fact that a high percentage of mammals are facing extinction has nothing to do with us? It's arguable that it is "natural selection" - but does that mean we should do nothing about it, even when we know it's our fault?

If its our fault, should we do anything? If we're dumping chemicals, then yes lets put a stop to that. But what about the rise in urban foxes - should we kill them all? What about the grey squirrel? I'd have them all killed, to restore the red population. Is that cruel? Lots of people would object to a grey cull. I wouldn't.

Maybe if we could "save" them, regardless of fault, should we not try? We would with other humans. Are we not evolving into more caring creatures?

We don't really care about other humans though, do we? Else we'd be sticking our oar in a bit more often than we do, rather than just protecting our interests as a nation.

Does that mean that all is roses? We didn't clean up our act because the fish were dying, we did it because we were harming ourselves. Does that sit all fine with you?

Not really, but that's the way things are, and that's the way they'll always be. Humans are at the top of the food chain, I don't see a problem with being realistic about things like this.

Honestly Tom, for years I think you simply don't care about this sort of shit. I agree with many other of your opinions, but this isn't a picture of you that I've built up over this thread - but over a few years of similar threads...

You couldn't be more wrong. I think I do more than most to protect what's good about this life. I'm just deeply cynical about most people's motivations, most notably, our elected representatives. I think about the average person, and then remember that 50% of people are more stupid than he.

 

[Scouse]

if its a choice between my nice warm house, and the lesser-spotted fruitbat of Flixton, well sorry bat but you're history.

This is what gets my goat with most people. They're quite happy to espouse how much they care about animals (and nobody loves my cat more than I do), but nearly all of them will put themselves first.

I'm the kind of guy who moves snails out from under his car tyres in the morning (which I did this very morning).

This was just before driving my Type-R to work. So yep, I'm a hypocrite.

The way I see it (and I really have thought long and hard about it) is: If you voluntairly fuck yourself over when nobody else does then you're dumb. I'm praying (well, I would if I believed in that bunkum) that Government sets an environmentally friendly legal framework under which we all must live. Until they do that, my friends, whatever we do is a waste of time and life.

Until then you can only do the little things that matter - like shifting snails/stopping your domestic cat killing wild-life, etc..


Edit:

Its just me being brutally honest. Of course I'm bothered that whales might die off, but will I do anything about it? No. Neither will nearly all the 60-odd million people in this country. They just don't care enough, in just the same way as they couldn't give a shit about the rainforests, or starving people in Africa. Its all tokenism as far as I can see, and only a very few people actually care enough to do anything. Most people are quite selfish, and not in a bad way.

Actually Tom. I see your viewpoint much more clearly now - and I agree with you. That's why I'm after the legal framework I mentioned. I would vote for it - even if I knew it was my lifestyle would be severely adversely affected. But flaggelate myself in the face of everyone else living it up? No way!

 

[Scouse]

Not really, but that's the way things are, and that's the way they'll always be.

I've found something else to disagree with you on though.

That's definately not the way they'll always be. Not if our leaders, generations from now, make the right decisions.

Unless you believe that, as humans who are still evolving, we'll never evolve to be altruistic on such a level? That's a pretty depressing thought

 

[Tom]

They can make all the decisions they like. Just imagine how quickly though decisions would fall by the wayside if there were some kind of human catastrophe.

Just imagine how quickly this country would descend into chaos if petrol and diesel suddenly stopped coming in. I'd give us two weeks at the most, before we were eating dogs.

 

[Scouse]

Of course we'd fall into chaos if petrol and diesel suddenly stopped coming in.

That's the point of changing it isn't it?

 

[Tom]

Well I'm all ears, if you know how to run a country without oil?

 

[Scouse]

Tom. You're getting silly.

Of course I don't know how to do that. Not a single person on the planet does.

The fact is tho, we are going to run out. Should we just do nothing until we do, or should we find a different way of living?

This is tied nicely up with the capitalism thread that's ongoing. We know we can't grow our economies forever. It's impossible. Should we change or should we go headlong into disaster?

 

[Tom]

No, we're not going to run out. Its a very old tired argument that never goes away, just as the oil never goes away.

There is plenty of oil left, it'll just get more expensive, but it'll never run out. And we have hundreds of years of coal buried under these shores. I live on top of the Lancashire coal field, there's plenty left.

 

[rynnor]

We know we can't grow our economies forever. It's impossible.

Forever is a silly word - humanity doesnt have forever so its a bit pointless - theres no reason why economic growth cannot continue though.

Its a bit of a mis-understanding of economics to think that it cant cannot continue to grow for many years to go - it may be linked to finite things but its not a direct 1 to 1 link.