Is it ethical for present day humans...

[tris-]

to completley use up all non-renewable resources for their own needs?

this was a question posed to us in an exam at uni. below is what i said

"i believe it is ethical. the more resources we use, the more technically advanced we get. this is a trend that can be seen as time goes on, resources are used but technology gets better. for example, we have now got nuclear reactors which need a lot of resources to create but it is technically more advanced than burning coal in a furnace to make steam, which uses less recourses to create. we can now harness solar and wind power because of technological advances. without using up resources we may not have invented them for their current use.
i believe the more resources we use, the more technicaly advanced future humans will be. thus, enabling them to create use of other resources in the future, as we have seen already in the past and present. in using other resources from their technical advances, technology as a whole should increase, ensuring survival of humans. reason being we now rely on technology and its advances to survive."

im sorry for teh bad english and formatting etc. but i only had about 5 minutes to write it in the exam and i cba to change it now. i also got full marks for it .

so really what im after is your views on how ethical it is/isnt.

 

[Sar]

No!

We should all sit quietly in our houses with the lights & heating off and hold our breath so as not to use up too much oxygen!

 

[Wij]

Hey - Carl's using our gravity !

 

[tris-]

i dont know what to think. i escape daoc ot and my necrophiliac ways to post something sensible, but sadly it did not work.

'retires back to daoc ot '

 

[Bodhi]

I don't know any present day humans. All the people I know are from the future. They've run out of petrol and could do with a tenners worth just to get them home.

 

[Tom]

www.transport2000.co.uk for all your environmental matters.

 

[Earl]

www.conservatives.com for all your environmental matters

 

[xane]

 

[DaGaffer]

Sensible Answer:

It all comes down to your faith in humanity. If you believe in human ingenuity then don't worry about tomorrow because we'll deal with tomorrow's problems when we need to. If you don't have faith in humanity then you join organisations like Transport2000 and FOtE

The reality is of course somewhere in-between; I lean towards the 'faith in humanity' camp, but at the same time as a species pissing on our own doorstep is never a particularly good idea.

 

[haarewin]

governments need to start using nuclear power more widely. everyone is still scared of another chernobyl.

 

[noblok]

I think it's ethical to use the non-renewable resources as long as you also invest in research for renewable ones. I can't agree with completely using up all the non-renewable resources before an alternative has been found though. It isn't that hard to take defend not using it all up from a purely moral point of view, but when it comes to the implementation one is faced with a lot more difficulties.

I assume that we can do at least another few decades with the non-renewable resources, but will this give us enough time to develop the technology for renewable resources? Should we all use only a minimum of energy untill the new technology has been fully developped? What is considered as this minimum of energy? As it is impossible to answer the above questions, the most sensible thing to do would be to advise everyone to mind their energy use and to strongly encourage research into renewable energy resources.

You may ask: why settle for a second-best solution? The point I'm trying to make is that this solution isn't a second best solution. To use an example of Margalit*: if you're a pilot and want to fly to Hawaii, but don't have enough fuel to make it, isn't it better to choose another location rather than flying to Hawaii and crashing into the sea? This solution isn't a second best solution, it is the best possible solution.

I'm not a scientist, so I know very little about scientific development and the advantages of nuclear energy and the like .


*Avishai Margalit, The Decent Society, London University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996. The example was used in adifferent context, but I think it's also applicable i this situation.

 

[phazey]

By the time it's all ran out, we'd have moved on to colonise and pillage a different planet.

As said by some guy in Alien Resurection:

"Earth.....what a shithole!"

 

[Paradroid]

to completley use up all non-renewable resources for their own needs?

this was a question posed to us in an exam at uni. below is what i said

"i believe it is ethical. the more resources we use, the more technically advanced we get. this is a trend that can be seen as time goes on, resources are used but technology gets better. for example, we have now got nuclear reactors which need a lot of resources to create but it is technically more advanced than burning coal in a furnace to make steam, which uses less recourses to create. we can now harness solar and wind power because of technological advances. without using up resources we may not have invented them for their current use.
i believe the more resources we use, the more technicaly advanced future humans will be. thus, enabling them to create use of other resources in the future, as we have seen already in the past and present. in using other resources from their technical advances, technology as a whole should increase, ensuring survival of humans. reason being we now rely on technology and its advances to survive."

im sorry for teh bad english and formatting etc. but i only had about 5 minutes to write it in the exam and i cba to change it now. i also got full marks for it .

so really what im after is your views on how ethical it is/isnt.

I think, no.

I also would have failed you, not because I don't agree with your conclusion, but because I thought your reasoning was flawed and you made simplistic assumptions.

For instance in the topic of nuclear reactors you compare this "modern" technology against the "old" technology of burning coal - but both coal & nuclear reactors create steam to generate energy, so much for technological breakthroughs (there are better ways to harness nuclear energy).

...
i believe the more resources we use, the more technicaly advanced future humans will be.
...

This is a sweeping assumption - without checks and balances, and, most importantly, a PLAN, we're just going to waste the remaining resources pissing into the wind. How much of these natural resources will be wasted filling your car so you can drive to a titty bar in the town - essential to the survival of the human species? No. Ethical for people to waste resources in such a way? No. But wait, in our modern capitalistic global free market who gives a shit about tomorrow! It's all about short term profits.

My worry is, there is no plan. These resources you talk about are all "owned" by companies/corporations/countries who're only interested in exploiting the resource. If, by some coincidence, some of these resources are used by companies/individuals to create future technologies which will make everything ok, then great! But it'll just be a coincidence, or an unexpected outcome. (the plucky hero saves the day and they all celebrate with a hamper of tuck!)

You could have summed up the argument as follows: you have to break some eggs to make an omelette - but you shouldn't break every egg (thereby making the chicken species, and its eggy by-product, extinct) just because your feeling peckish.

:touch:

 

[tris-]

thats all well and good

but the question was all about just my oppinion. i dont think stick poking is necessary

i wasnt saying the steam power was more advanced. what i was saying is the whole nuclear facility is more advanced than the burning of coal. we will run out of coal soon, and without using it up in the first place would we have advanced and made nuclear reactors to generate electricity for the population?
it was imo, no we wouldnt of made it. but who knows in the end? we dont, thats why its imo .

i dont think we could avoid making new advances without using the resources mentioned. wind, nuclear, solar. they all supply electricity. when coal runs out, this is where electricity will come from. the electricity will then be used to make new things more advanced than we have. where else would they get electricity from?

the reason i say future humans will be more advanced, is because imo they will. as new methods are created, new technologies discoverd, do we not get more advanced as a by-product of it?

 

[Paradroid]

I don't think it's ethical to use all the resources without planning for the future. We waste resources enough as it is - imagine if, in the future, we do make a startling discovery, but it requires huge quantities of oil? (which we wasted on everything from plastic bags to dirt-track racing)

As you say, we do have to use some resources just to get by and even more to make advances, but without any planning or direction we could end up regretting our current attitudes.

What if someone had invented a rudimentary mechanical pump back in the 15th century, and someone else discovered some of the basic properties of crude oil (and knew where to find it). We could have used up all the easily accessable oil before the 20th century arrived making sticky black effigies of the pope. (extreme example, but highlights my point)

I just think we need to properly devote resources to exactly the things you think will "just happen" (as a natural consequence of the human condition?). I think that by not properly devoting the needed resources, and continuing to waste stuff in such a cavalier fashion, we're being both irresponsible and unethical.

But what can we do to change this? Our politicians reckon it'll be occupational suicide to address the issue - look at the damage being done by air travel, but you won't see any elected politician rallying for fare increases to balance the problem. On the contrary, "New" Labour approved the Heathrow expansion. Can you imagine anything radical from any career politician? They just want to vote their own pay rises whilst keeping the business sector sweet, and the population unconcerned, as we stumble blindly into the abyss (AKA the future). (/rant)

 

[rynnor]

The big problem is plastics and all the other materials we create from oil that we are foolishly using to power cars.

I dont see an ethical problem using up future rescources - in reality what we are often talking about is the using up of rescources that are not economically viable for extraction by current methods so with technological improvements we are still a long way from running out.

However, we currently have no substitute for oil in the production of plastics and it seems un-ethical to thoughtlessly squander the earths rescources.

P.S. Tris - theres still shedloads of coal to be exploited - several hundred years worth I believe and thats just with known regions.

Personally I believe we will eventually get fusion reactors or other high energy systems to work which will solve our power requirements for thousands of years.

Remember that every method for extracting energy from matter we that currently use is incredibly in-effecient - theres a huge potential to be tapped.

 

[Moo]

i think it's unethical for anyone except me.


this statement is a constant for most people i think.