What's best for Earth?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bricklayer, Oct 12, 2019.

  1. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In your opinion, what is best for Earth? If you had your way, what would become of the Earth?

    For example, in my opinion, the best possible fulfillment of Earth's potential would be to have
    human beings multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it. In my opinion, the Earth, and all that is about it, derives its highest value from its value to human beings. I am a humanist not an environmentalist. My goal for the environment is not to minimize human impact on the environment. My goal for the environment is to maximize human wellbeing.

    What do you think is best?
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  2. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,712
    Likes Received:
    5,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    gee golly willkers batman, that sounds just awful.

    I'm hoping for a long term symbiotic relationship between mankind and earth, and personally i'd prefer that we reduce population down to 60% of current levels and maintain that figure.
     
    crank, Blaster3 and Bowerbird like this.
  3. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A "relationship"? With the planet? Is that the kind of "relationship" one has with a garden or a mine?
     
    CKW likes this.
  4. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,587
    Likes Received:
    2,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earth has no conscience so I don't think it's interesting to give it intentions.

    The best for mankind would be to survive, when you cause too much damages to your ecosystem, you die, that's what happened on easter islands, they cut all the trees and when the euros landed in their islands, there were just a dozen of survivor left, on an island who knew thousands of people.
     
  5. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, that's a theory. We don't really know what happened on Easter Island.

    I do agree that we should do with our planet whatever is best for human beings. Our environmental goal should not be to minimize human impact on the environment but to maximize human well being.

    We must manage our resources wisely if we are going to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.
     
  6. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    22,794
    Likes Received:
    19,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just described the life cycle of a virus.
     
  7. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,587
    Likes Received:
    2,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As far as we know, the island was full of forest and they destroyed it. Pretty sure we have good ideas of how they caused their fate.

    Concerning human population, I consider that a region should be relatively self sufficient, I consider that for a country to be totally dependant of food importations is a poor decision.
    From my point of view, you're making a false dualism, the long-term human well being is, as I understand things, codependant of well being of the ecosysteme. If we destroy our nowodays ecosystem beyond repair, the human population would collapse. I'm not against the increase of human population, but at a small pace.
    I red a long time ago in a scientific newspaper that over population and fast population expansion lead often to population collapse.

    I'm afraid that the 21th century will be quite dark for mankind. Let's hope the people I listen and I will be wrong.
     
  8. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you regard humanity as a virus?

    Do you believe that all virus kill their hosts or are even harmful to them?

    Do you know that, pound for pound, there are more virus on Earth then any other type of life?
     
  9. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems to me that we are in complete agreement on how to best have human beings multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.
     
  10. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,587
    Likes Received:
    2,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suppose we agree but don't says that in the same way. I'm not sure it's extremly reasonnable to multiply more. In 2 centuries, we went from 500 millions human being to 8 billions, I'm afraid we could be back to 500 millions or less if we continue in that path.
    Furthermore, I think it's necessary to get a minimum of nature. I maybe project too much, but without a minimum of nature, I become mad. It always make me sad to see more and more forest and fields being destroyed to build some Ikea or shopping center.
    Concerning subduing nature, did you ever rode a horse ? I never did that for a long time, but when you ride with a horse, you can't subdue him totally. You have to learn to know the horse and adjust your behavour back to the horse. Basically, beyond subduing, you have to "collaborate" with the horse, earn his trust. I have difficulties with that word "subdue". I don't think we can "subdue" earth.

    I fear that the damages we caused to nature until now could have terrific consequences in the next decades/century. Again, let's hope I will be wrong. The deceased genius Stephen Hawking was fearing a disappearance of mankind in 2100.

    What I think would be the best for the near future ? Starting to consume less in the countries people consume the most, and creating more durable objects inside buy and throw things. Helping the poorest countries to have better life level, as I tend to consider that word inequalities favour overconsumption. Stabilize world population, either the countries with too few children should get a little bit more and the one with too much a little bit less. Having less intensive economic systems but more durable. I know it won't and can't happen.

    Behavour of our species remind me the "live fast, die early" of some people.
     
  11. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes Received:
    3,087
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Easter Island had a healthy population when it was first visited by Dutch sailors, perhaps as many as 10,000. However, by the time the next European ship returned the population had been ravaged by diseases brought by the first visitors.
    When New Zealand decided to corral all the natives onto one small
    part of the island and turn the rest over to sheep there were still around 1800 inhabitants left.
    The trees were cut down to make room for agriculture. Easter Islanders were actually very successful considering the poor quality of the soil. If anything, Easter Island should be used as an example of great environmental conservation. They employed many successful practices and supported a large population on very few resources.
    They still found time to build hundreds of large statues and move them all over the island.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
    Bowerbird and VotreAltesse like this.
  12. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes Received:
    3,087
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was actually overgrazing by the sheep brought by Europeans which did the most environmental damage to Easter Island.
     
    Bowerbird and VotreAltesse like this.
  13. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By all means, we need to be wise about how we manage our planet to maximize human well being.
     
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    63,306
    Likes Received:
    44,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Look up the term “Malthusian Catastrophe”
     
  15. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you consider it inevitable? In other words, do consider the goal of human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it to be folly, at best, or sin at worst?
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    63,306
    Likes Received:
    44,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Don’t even go there with the environmental disasters Australia has brought on itself
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    63,306
    Likes Received:
    44,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The real question is how will you prevent environmental disaster?

    As I said we Aussies have learn the hard way not to **** with nature
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  18. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    6,015
    Likes Received:
    5,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    total nuclear annihilation...
     
  19. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me? I'm certainly not trying to minimize human impact on the environment. I'm trying to maximize human well being. Disasters don't that.
     
  20. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,249
    Likes Received:
    10,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Use it to the fullest extent necessary to get us to other habitable worlds, then create of it a shrine to Humanity's beginnings.
     
    bricklayer likes this.
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earth is not a living entity that can have interests. Nothing can be good or bad for it. To think otherwise is animism.
     
  22. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Earth derives its value from its value to human beings. The best possible fulfillment of Earth's potential is for human beings to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.
     
  23. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    8,806
    Likes Received:
    4,900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The trouble with this thinking is obvious. Man will survive and possibly thrive but we will lose so much in the process. When the Elephants are gone... and the Bison... and the Wolf ... the endless variety of birds, fishes, trees, and other species will be missed. Kinda sad really.
     
  24. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes Received:
    3,087
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  25. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The complete and total extinction of the entire human race. Only then can the planet truly benefit, as nature will reassert itself and the remaining species will evolve and adapt to their surroundings. Humans do not adapt and evolve, they destroy all that is before them in the name of their own comfort.

    If you as a human are currently alive, then you are ultimately a part of the problem by extension.
     
    Blaster3 likes this.

Share This Page