They couldn't care less about the planet, all they care about is the environment they live in... the earth has been here for quite some time and I highly doubt a few cars and plastic bags will harm it. It has survived so much; volcanoes, earthquakes, getting hit by space rocks, global warming/cooling, magnetic waves... and environmentalists worry about about the ozone layer... that's all fine and good, but how many actually care about the planet? Many only care about the survival of their species and other species and not the globe itself. Even if the ozone layer disappeared, the earth would still be here. So, save the environment, but the planet doesn't need saving.
Well, is there something wrong with doing what we can to preserve an environment that's conducive to human life? I agree that preventing the environment from becoming uninhabitable by humans is what is important rather than "saving the planet." What do we care about a planet with no people?
So, you want to live in a toxic, posionous habitat! Go ahead, but I am sure there is a lot of people would like to change what is happening to our planet. We only have one home. It is worth saving, You don't have to be an environmentist to appreceive this. A lot of what has been occurring are man-made processes producing man-made chemicals. These are not natural.
And the ozone layer protects all life from the deadly UV rays. Without the earth will still be here, but no mores of life. We might as well be living on the moon.
What ever you been smoiking, I don't want any.
Environmentalists care about the environment, not teh planet, hence the name. talking about saving teh planet is usually part of their media hype.
Personally I wish genuine enviornmental groups would spend more time talking about reducing pollution than reducing the carbon footprint, there is currently zero point in supporting environmental agencies right now because the majority of the money that once would have gone to clean up campaigns and environmental protection now goes to government lobbying and media campaigns about carbon, which is one of the least effective 'global warming' gasses in the atmoshpere.
Hopefully once Al Gore dies there will be less religious environemntal fevour between teh global cooling, wait now, global warming, damn the temperatures are droping again, global cooling CAUSED by global warming, that funds once used to increase pollutant reduction, waste pickup, environmental protection and so forth will return to areas of actual use.
Do you mean we should do nothing to protect the planet and let it die as it goes? What if we try forcing the greener technology than the polluting technologies and leading the pollution rates low?
That's like saying I shouldn't care about breathing because it's the gas exchange in my lungs that matters.
I'm saying don't say you're saving the planet when you're only saving the environment we live in. Save the human race, because the earth doesn't need to be saved.
When people say "save the planet", they are simply using shorthand. They mean the environment and it isn't necessarily selfish human centric at all.
Save the human race from becoming extinct. The Earth will go on, even if it changes the environment, the Earth will still be here, but plants and animals might not be. It's that simple. Everything on earth may die, but the earth itself will remain.
Somehow you separated the human race from its habitat -- the Earth. One of the reasons for the rapid disappearance of species worldwide is the destructionf of their homes - their habitats. Destroy the environment destroy the human race. So to save the human race we must protect our habitat the environment. So, maybe the envrionmentists are trying to save the human race. It's make sense, doesn't it? You can't have one without the other.
I understand the confusion: Is it genuine concern for the planet's survival or a pseudo-concern for the planet only as it meets our needs for human survival?
We humans are a big-brained species with the ability to overthink all that we see and do. We are equipped with emotions that allow us to feel bad when cruel or catastropic things happen. Earth will outlive us until the sun burns it up. Nature is beautiful yet cruel. It is not our place to prevent it. We are a flash in the pan by Earth's clock. Global warming is real, but is it our job to change it? It IS our responsibilty to be good stewards of the earth by living in harmony with other species, cleaning up after ourselves, and leaving things as nature intended.
This planet was here, long before we got here, being attacked by comets and meteors... It's still here! It has survived violent volcanoes, ice ages, and earthquakes... and is still here.
What are a few billion puny humans (most who are not even industrialized) going to do to this strong and vibrant planet? Environmentalists were given some form of "power" by idiot kings across the globe and refuse to relinquish it even though most of us are on to their schemes.
I know an environmentalist. He built a $2 million house near Zion National Park. He then spent about $500,000 to build a private reservoir blocking off the water from one of the streams in the area(they call them rivers there, but they're pretty small)
Anyone who even scratches the surface of a topic like permaculture will understand that even the soil we grow our food in is exploited, if we do not take care to replenish what we take out. Water is treated like a resource that will be constantly available 'on tap' and so far it has been for most. As the population increases so our exploration of natural resources increases.
I find it hard believe how much water is used to produce a cup of take away coffee or a beefburger. Plastic degrades in sunlight and if it ends up in the ocean sea creatures mistake it for food and consume it, what other animal does that to the environment/planet? So I think that saving the planet and the human race might just be interconnected. However, taken to the extreme without humans exploiting the 'spaceship' it might just manage to heal and recover by itself.
Tell that to the extinct species, the people who died of heavy metal and radiation poisoning, the people who got cancer due to the ozone hole, the silent islands where nothing is left but rats, the guano islands that now don't even have dirt, let alone plants or animals....
I am an environmentalist, don't tell me what I do or do not care about. I care about plants and animals. I don't think having a rock, and a few humans is "the planet". I care about people living in areas full of toxic waste, including right here in the US where mine tailing gave kids lead poisoning. I care about kids with cancer near Chernobyl and kids with mercury poisoning in Japan.
I am a scientist, don't tell me we can't hurt the planet. I know the evidence. Thank you. I care about people other than me. That is what environmentalism is. The not caring is not on the part of the environmentalist, but those who don't give a damn about other people, animals and plants. Just so long as they are okay and their species will go on for the foreseeable future (a.k.a. their lifetime)
Or do you seriously think a dead rock is all that matters? That would be a bizarre philosophy.
You have proven my point. You care about the ENVIRONMENT and not actually the "rock". It is not that I do not care about the people and animals, but people are often saying "Save the planet!" without really thinking. They believe that planet encompasses the whole world and everything on it, but the fact is, the planet will still exist without the plants and animals. Look at the moon, it exists doesn't it?
The earth will continue to live, whether we take care of the planet or not. What my post was originally about was that the environment and habitat we live in is what you care about, not the rock. All I ask is that people expand on their argument beyond, "You're killing the planet!" No... we're killing our habitat and environment that we need to continue this species and other species... not the rock itself.
I do abelieve the environmentists are more concern about life on this planet, but the environment also provides oxygen, valuable nutrients, water, and energy. Without these lifeless ingredients life itself could not exist.
The species on earth would not exist, but that's not the point at all. The point is, they claim to love the earth, that the planet means so much to them, when they care about the things on earth and the things that depend on it to survive. They don't care about the planet itself, but the things that thrive off of it.
Environmentalism is a broad philosophy, ideology and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution. For this reason, concepts such as a Land Ethic, Environmental Ethics, Biodiversity, Ecology and the Biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly. At its crux, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humanity and their broader organismic and biogeochemical milieu in such a way that all the components are accorded a proper degree of respect.
A definiton of environmentalism from the Wikipedia. Several things to notice here:
1) Movement to control pollution-- controlling toxins produced by man would help save the human race which you have adovcated.
2) Concern for the health of the environment which includes the living organisms involved. Many creatures act similary to a canary taken into a coal mine. Their behavior indicates a dying planet which includes all creatures including man.
3) Attempt to balacnce humanity with a broader picture of ecology and the interrelationships between species and the biochemical connection for their survival.
I think you have missed the broader picture and somehow (I don't how) you figured environmentalists are very,narrow minded people.
BUT I THINK IT IS YOU THAT IS NARROW-MINDED PEOPLE!
You notice how all of what you wrote was able sustaining life on the planet? I don't think environmentalists are narrow-minded actually, I think they just spring "Save the Planet" a bit too much when they could be using a different approach.
For example, you walk by a group of people with signs about "Love the planet", "Save Mother Earth" and things of that nature, it's kind of old hat. It's not shocking, yet if they wrote what their real argument was- "Save humanity!", "The air you breathe today might be gone tomorrow"... you would get far more attention and a lot more questions. If the goal is to save the living beings on this planet, then say so. Because it isn't the rock they want to save, but what grows on the rock.
Also, if you really think about it, don't you think this forum makes people think about saving the environment (without wasting paper on signs and posters) while making them state their own individualistic thoughts on the matter?
True. But action still speaks louder than words. Talk all we want, have conferences, speak our mind, write things on paper (or ideas over the Internet) or even pray for a better future. But if action is not taken nothing ever gets done, We need to act upon our ideas.
Secondly, we cannot separate the environment from the human race especially since we are probably a major force in destroying our planet. But we can be a major force in preserving this planet for future generations. No point in trying to save the human race if we continue to pollute toxins in our soil, water and air. These chemicals are man-made and nothing is natural about them. They do not belong in our natural world.
I guess we forget we actually a lot closer to nature than we realize. If you don't know want to believe it, continue to do what we are doing to the environment and just see how long we will survive.
Have you misread this entire forum? To save humanity, you have to sustain their environment... it's not a difficult concept to grasp. Without air, we die. Without food, we die. Saying "Save the planet" doesn't motivate a lot of people as we tend to be selfish creatures. But to tell them that their actions will kill millions, that will.
"But to tell them that their actions will kill millions, that will."
When, exactly? Scientists have been saying that about climate change for years and it has yet to have any noticeable effect on society at large. We already know that more immediate problems such as air and water pollution cause or contribute to thousands of premature deaths annually, yet that hasn't stopped us from polluting either. When the people who are suffering and dying as the result of our actions are poor brown folks on the other side of the world, most people don't seem to give a s***, as long as they get their cheap oil and cheap food and cheap plastic crap.
When doesn't really matter, does it? As long as they are thinking about sustaining the environment, then they wouldn't have to worry.
Of course when matters. These are preventable deaths we're talking about here. Even one is too many, but the longer we wait to take action, the more there will be.
"Thinking about" sustaining the environment doesn't do anybody a lick of good. What we need is action, which is precisely what we're not getting, no matter how many dire predictions scientists make about the future and no matter how many facts they publicize about the present. People just don't care until it affects them directly. As long as the death and suffering can be shunted off onto others (preferably safely out of sight in a third world country), they will be.
The problem is that there is a substantial - and growing - segment of the planet that is not obligated to do anything to help prevent damage to the ecosystem, especially as it pertains to CO2 and global warming. And since any imposed clamp on fossil fuel use will lead to a slowing economy, there is no incentive to sign on to any agreement or to abide by the terms of an agreement. The more Kyoto-type agreement signatories, the lower the price of fossil fuels and the higher its consumption by the rest. It's the Jevons paradox at work.
As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I think fossil fuels will continue to be burned up no matter what kind of "collective" action we take. I think we should focus on working on ameliorating the conditions of those who are going to be affected the most.
I'm inclined to agree that we probably won't take action until it's too late, but focusing on adaptation at the expense of mitigation is a losing proposition. At this point, we're pretty much locked into two degrees of additional warming over the next century, but how far beyond that we go is almost entirely up to us. If we act now to curb emissions, we can keep it to 2 degrees and have a comparatively easy time adapting. If we don't act to curb emissions, we could end up with a +8-10 F hellhole, which could cost more than a quadrillion dollars in adaptation costs, according to one recent study.
I recommend reading some of Joe Romm's posts on mitigation vs adaptation (it's a hot topic on his blog). This is a good starting point:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/08/2 … ate-chang/
Don't get me wrong. If there were a mitigation scenario that would actually work, then I'd be all for it.
I just keep on imagining that you'll have a number of countries that will agree to curb emissions; a quarter will fulfill their obligations, while 3/4 will not. (I'm looking at Kyoto for guidance here) Those fulfilling their obligations will reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, slightly depressing the cost of those fuels on the open market. Those countries not obligated to curb their emissions, or that really aren't trying to (that would be the majority of the planet), would use even more of those fuels because they're cheaper.
I agree that mitigation would be much cheaper than adaptation, but it supposes a radical change in the way humanity does things that I don't believe will happen.
In short, we're doomed.
http://www.grist.org/climate-change/201 … ate-change
...unless maybe a geoengineering solution works. I personally believe that that's what it's going to take. There is not nearly enough political will worldwide to pull off a mitigation agreement which everyone actually fulfills their commitments, and adaptation is far too costly (over a quadrillion dollars!).
Most of mankind's most vexing problems have had an eventual solution through technology (I'm thinking about disease, starvation, etc.).
I haven't liked most of the suggestions I've seen one bit, though. They reek of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Much simpler just to plant a gazillion trees if we want to go that route.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, kerryg. Most people in our "developed world" think nothing about the most serious global problems facing humanity today. Their immediate concerns is where can I get those new shoes on sale, or I hope I haven't max litmy credit card before I can purchase the lastest ipad (iphone). And yet their actions of purchasing these "toys" is why the poor on the other side of the globe is suffering with little hope for any kind of future.
If only people realize their actions of living beyond their means is lliterally destroying any kind of future for mankind.
The planet will be fine, regardless of what we do. It is the nature of Nature to sluff off epochs full of life forms from time to time. Frankly, I mostly think it is arrogant and typically narcissistic of our species (at least some of us) to suppose we A) have such a deep impact on anything that matters, B) know enough to reckon anything on this front given how tiny a span of time we have understood anything at all about how this planetary thing works--much less our impact on it, and C) that we can do anything about it if the Earth decides to shrug and shake most or all of us off.
Every generation thinks theirs is the important one. The one where the END comes. The one where the significant event happens. The one where "it all plays out for real" whether as a start or a finish. To think otherwise is to accept that our time will just be another time, another herd of humans who lived on a changing planet and who died without any impact on anything beyond the course of human history (if they even managed that). Which is sad, really, because that is all there actually is for us.
[Insert contradictory religious argument that uses itself as evidence for its own truth here].
The earth will take care of itself, regardless of what we do. It may not be pretty for us, but the earth has survived a lot more trauma in the past 4 billion plus years than we could possibly cause. What we do to the environment may impact the human race, but the earth will still be plugging along, long after we are history.
Well as someone who believes in saving the planet, environment or whatever term you want to use for it (few people take it so literally as to think of saving the planet as anything other than saving the environment, it is just a term of expression), I personally feel the best thing that could happen to this planet/environment/rock/ecosystem etc, is for the human race to be wiped out leaving nature to get back in balance. Right now we are having a terrible impact on so much of the planet and the species that live on it, that we are essentially the same as a nasty disease that needs curing, so no, in my case I am not concerned about preserving the environment so humans can survive, I am concerned for all the other creatures and plant life that need a healthy planet to survive that right now we are systematically damaging/destroying in order to preserve our own species above all others.
Well maybe we should call it save the "crust and atmosphere layer" You have to be willing to save some of the planet layer or crust layer as that is the medium which plants grow and produce the oxygen and atmosphere layer so i'm not so sure 'save the planet' is so out of the realm of wrong speaking within environmentallism.Farming has to do with the crust layer as well so it is part of the planet layer. Technically the rock layer extends from the denses matallic elements of the core on up to the mettaloids and semi-metals like carbon and silicon where they transition at the transition layer.( or not so technically as I may have my terms wrong)
Now I'm no environmentalist ( i dump plenty of oil changes out in the back ) but what do you have against the Alkili metals? Besides gold resides in the denser rock layers so I think I'll meet halfway and start saying " save the crust layer!" except where the gold lies so I can get it!... And besides.. if we don't save the planet from dying then Aliens will just mine up all the gold themselves from the dead rock layer.
It's a good thing i'm not active in the ACLU or I would have to report your discriminatory acts against alkaline elements to the proper authorities!...Shame on you!
i keep seeing this commercial where some baby is having an asthma attack and the mom just elft it alone by a powerplant. A. who wouuld leave their baby to die!?
I received this today, edited it a bit, and felt I should post it because it speaks volumes:
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.
The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."
The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk,soda, and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they actually were recycled.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
We washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes. Kids got hand-me-downs from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new stuff.
In the 50s, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen, not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have so many electric gadgets to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. We didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
We didn't throw things away. We had them regularly serviced and repaired. Planned obsolescence didn't exist. We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty or carried a thermos instead of a plastic bottle, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole thing just because the blade got dull.
During my childhood, people took public transportation or carpooled, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service, but she's right, we didn't have the green thing then.
It's sad to me that the current generation laments how wasteful we older people were and how we are out of touch with our environment. I personally hate the wastefulness of today's world as well as our dependency on electronic devices and computers.
If each of us would think for ourself and act on own own behalf instead of waiting for someone else, we would have fewer problems. Our responsibility is to clean up after ourselves and clean up after others as needed. Clever slogans and heated arguments between scientists and environmentalists do nothing; it's our personal actions that bring about accomplishments and change.
When I was an avid hiker and outdoorsman, I saw countless examples of disregard for the environment or the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. Picnic trash just as the party left it, disposable diapers at water's edge,
campfires that had been abandoned but not extinquished, ATVs tearing through restored fish habitat leaving gasoline residue. I could go on and on.
Instead of fueling up for angry banter, let's ask ourselves if we have done our part. How much trash did you sidestep today?
by nikki17 years ago
by sooner than later7 years ago
yes it does. never does it say the earth is flat. Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth. (He being God)
by Greenheart7 years ago
Two of the most important issues of our time.The environment and reaching our personal goals.If you could work from home,how much would you like to be making?.And what would you do with the money?.Happy new year.Gavin
by kat115 years ago
In the past two years; the world has suffered major earthquakes, tsunamis in Haiti and Japan, major hurricanes, volcanoes in Iceland are letting off more than steam, the Middle East still has not found peace and the...
by Amie Warren6 years ago
I don't have a religion, but I am a pantheist. The reason I chose pantheism is because it isn't a religion, although you can make it one if you wish. Pantheists can even be Christian. I look around me and see nature as...
by jomine5 years ago
If you are religious, in the end god will sent fire and stars and all to earth to kill almost all except a selected few who will live eternally to praise him(A CD player might have served him better though, without much...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.