Environment/Global Warming, am I crazy?

[Acaroid]

To start with, do we need so many anti-PETA threads, we get it use the search function and add to one of those topics, dont start a new one. Anyway the reason for the PETA thing, these ideas of fixing the environment and to try and stop global warming etc etc to me they always miss out on the big key factors of the argument.

Medicine is one of the main reasons we have global warming.

the truth is, even if you eat like a vegan, drive a hybrid car, have your house covered with solar cells or whatever other idea you can think of that may save the environment. The truth is, you still have a carbon foot print.
Every single idea is just one for the short term, a quick fix solution.
what about the long term?
the truth of the matter is, we have alot of people on this planet
why?
because we dont die....
and no matter what global warming effort that is put in place, it will, in the long run fail, because more people will be born, the population of the planet will grow.
Medicine alows us to grow older, cures things that without it would kills us. The longer we are left to live, the longer we strain the planet, the more people we have on the planet. More people equals more polution.
Our obsession not to die, which is a obviously natural instinct to have, has doomed us all.
Not to mention because of medicine we as a race have become weaker. It is no longer the fittest survive, just the one who can afford the treatment. So things that would normally be breed out eventually (e.g. look at pestisides and why they have to be changed often) and make the human race stronger, we are infact making things worse for us in the long run.

but anyway, am I crazy for thinking this or does my veiw have a valid point? I know that obviously we are never going to stop medicine research and funding, but IMO I dont think for humans on a whole, it is the best thing for our survival. I guess it is a slightly communist view, the good of everyone is more important than the good of 1 person.

anyway that is just what i think.

note: I know other factors also effect how long we live, like mass production of food, techonolgy etc etc

 

[Eleuthera]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say global warming is actually the solution to the problem of global warming.

If we mess up the planet enough it will become (nearly) uninhabitable and most (or possibly all) people will die, thus restoring the balance and solving the problem.

 

[Casual Shinji]

If the Earth's temperature is going to change then there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

 

[dwightsteel]

To start with, do we need so many anti-PETA threads, we get it use the search function and add to one of those topics, dont start a new one. Anyway the reason for the PETA thing, these ideas of fixing the environment and to try and stop global warming etc etc to me they always miss out on the big key factors of the argument.

Medicine is one of the main reasons we have global warming.

the truth is, even if you eat like a vegan, drive a hybrid car, have your house covered with solar cells or whatever other idea you can think of that may save the environment. The truth is, you still have a carbon foot print.
Every single idea is just one for the short term, a quick fix solution.
what about the long term?
the truth of the matter is, we have alot of people on this planet
why?
because we dont die....
and no matter what global warming effort that is put in place, it will, in the long run fail, because more people will be born, the population of the planet will grow.
Medicine alows us to grow older, cures things that without it would kills us. The longer we are left to live, the longer we strain the planet, the more people we have on the planet. More people equals more polution.
Our obsession not to die, which is a obviously natural instinct to have, has doomed us all.
Not to mention because of medicine we as a race have become weaker. It is no longer the fittest survive, just the one who can afford the treatment. So things that would normally be breed out eventually (e.g. look at pestisides and why they have to be changed often) and make the human race stronger, we are infact making things worse for us in the long run.

but anyway, am I crazy for thinking this or does my veiw have a valid point? I know that obviously we are never going to stop medicine research and funding, but IMO I dont think for humans on a whole, it is the best thing for our survival. I guess it is a slightly communist view, the good of everyone is more important than the good of 1 person.

anyway that is just what i think.

note: I know other factors also effect how long we live, like mass production of food, techonolgy etc etc

Ok, here is my take on your point: What you are saying really boils down to the idea of counteracting the concept of "survival of the fittest", which is not necessarily the same as natural selection. It's often a point of contention among Darwinists that survival of the fittest doesn't occur naturally among all species but humans. In fact, many species that live in packs nurture members that are ailing. Humans took it a step further by finding resources, above the practical, for curing said ailments.

Another one of your points it's the adaptation of creature to their environmental changes (you reference the fact that insects have been known to build immunities to pesticides), but you're forgetting that much of modern medicine is built on the same principle, strengthening our natural immune systems. That's what vaccines are built for, and in fact, our species is much stronger now then we were even 100 years ago.

You're not crazy, and there is validity to your point. But all good arguments have good contentions. These are all just elements to consider.

 

[Acaroid]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say global warming is actually the solution to the problem of global warming.

If we mess up the planet enough it will become (nearly) uninhabitable and most (or possibly all) people will die, thus restoring the balance and solving the problem.

Oh but what im saying, the only reason we are messing it up so much is because of waaaay 2 many people, if we didnt have so many people, we wouldnt be messing it up...less people = less messing stuff up = no more global warming problem.

 

[Eleuthera]

Oh but what im saying, the only reason we are messing it up so much is because of waaaay 2 many people, if we didnt have so many people, we wouldnt be messing it up...less people = less messing stuff up = no more global warming problem.

And continuing that train of thought: More people > more global warming > less inhabitable space/resources > more decease/war/famine > less people > less messing stuff up > no more global warming problem

In other words, in the end the Earth will be fine, it's just the people that might be doomed

 

[T3h Camp3r T3rr0r1st]

so you're suggesting what? euthanasia of poor countries and like fat people? A valid point but I doubt anyone will follow it

 

[Acaroid]

To start with, do we need so many anti-PETA threads, we get it use the search function and add to one of those topics, dont start a new one. Anyway the reason for the PETA thing, these ideas of fixing the environment and to try and stop global warming etc etc to me they always miss out on the big key factors of the argument.

Medicine is one of the main reasons we have global warming.

the truth is, even if you eat like a vegan, drive a hybrid car, have your house covered with solar cells or whatever other idea you can think of that may save the environment. The truth is, you still have a carbon foot print.
Every single idea is just one for the short term, a quick fix solution.
what about the long term?
the truth of the matter is, we have alot of people on this planet
why?
because we dont die....
and no matter what global warming effort that is put in place, it will, in the long run fail, because more people will be born, the population of the planet will grow.
Medicine alows us to grow older, cures things that without it would kills us. The longer we are left to live, the longer we strain the planet, the more people we have on the planet. More people equals more polution.
Our obsession not to die, which is a obviously natural instinct to have, has doomed us all.
Not to mention because of medicine we as a race have become weaker. It is no longer the fittest survive, just the one who can afford the treatment. So things that would normally be breed out eventually (e.g. look at pestisides and why they have to be changed often) and make the human race stronger, we are infact making things worse for us in the long run.

but anyway, am I crazy for thinking this or does my veiw have a valid point? I know that obviously we are never going to stop medicine research and funding, but IMO I dont think for humans on a whole, it is the best thing for our survival. I guess it is a slightly communist view, the good of everyone is more important than the good of 1 person.

anyway that is just what i think.

note: I know other factors also effect how long we live, like mass production of food, techonolgy etc etc

Ok, here is my take on your point: What you are saying really boils down to the idea of counteracting the concept of "survival of the fittest", which is not necessarily the same as natural selection. It's often a point of contention among Darwinists that survival of the fittest doesn't occur naturally among all species but humans. In fact, many species that live in packs nurture members that are ailing. Humans took it a step further by finding resources, above the practical, for curing said ailments.

Another one of your points it's the adaptation of creature to their environmental changes (you reference the fact that insects have been known to build immunities to pesticides), but you're forgetting that much of modern medicine is built on the same principle, strengthening our natural immune systems. That's what vaccines are built for, and in fact, our species is much stronger now then we were even 100 years ago.

You're not crazy, and there is validity to your point. But all good arguments have good contentions. These are all just elements to consider.

lets hope the snip worked :| (edit:no it didnt >.<)

anyway
It is true vaccines do that, but if we let the disease run rampant, those who would naturally surive it would pass on that gene that would make the next generation already immune to the disease (well atleast if they didnt they would die off anyway).

but yeah it is hard to make a point without screwing up someplace, and really if you read it, you would see that if we didnt have medicine, our immune systems would be strong enough to handle alot of things without medicine so our population would grow anyway :|

it is great when you can poke holes in your own ideas LOL

 

[Acaroid]

Oh but what im saying, the only reason we are messing it up so much is because of waaaay 2 many people, if we didnt have so many people, we wouldnt be messing it up...less people = less messing stuff up = no more global warming problem.

And continuing that train of thought: More people > more global warming > less inhabitable space/resources > more decease/war/famine > less people > less messing stuff up > no more global warming problem

In other words, in the end the Earth will be fine, it's just the people that might be doomed

not EVERYONE... just most people XD more about the overall survival of the speices.
I guess Ive seen much logans run one 2 many times :|

 

[LongAndShort]

I understand your arguments. A teacher of mine once said that the earth's population will plateau at nine billion for reasons I can no longer remember, which is sustainable for the planet if we start being cleaner. We all have a carbon foot-print, but we can reduce that foot-print to a point where the earth is able to handle it. These short term solutions you mention are what is needed because combined they can help us in the long run.

 

[Eleuthera]

not EVERYONE... just most people XD more about the overall survival of the speices.
I guess Ive seen much logans run one 2 many times :|

You mean not all people are doomed? I don't know but I find it rather depressing that human kind might be around until the end of time. There must be something better out there... that will kill us all.

 

[dwightsteel]

To start with, do we need so many anti-PETA threads, we get it use the search function and add to one of those topics, dont start a new one. Anyway the reason for the PETA thing, these ideas of fixing the environment and to try and stop global warming etc etc to me they always miss out on the big key factors of the argument.

Medicine is one of the main reasons we have global warming.

the truth is, even if you eat like a vegan, drive a hybrid car, have your house covered with solar cells or whatever other idea you can think of that may save the environment. The truth is, you still have a carbon foot print.
Every single idea is just one for the short term, a quick fix solution.
what about the long term?
the truth of the matter is, we have alot of people on this planet
why?
because we dont die....
and no matter what global warming effort that is put in place, it will, in the long run fail, because more people will be born, the population of the planet will grow.
Medicine alows us to grow older, cures things that without it would kills us. The longer we are left to live, the longer we strain the planet, the more people we have on the planet. More people equals more polution.
Our obsession not to die, which is a obviously natural instinct to have, has doomed us all.
Not to mention because of medicine we as a race have become weaker. It is no longer the fittest survive, just the one who can afford the treatment. So things that would normally be breed out eventually (e.g. look at pestisides and why they have to be changed often) and make the human race stronger, we are infact making things worse for us in the long run.

but anyway, am I crazy for thinking this or does my veiw have a valid point? I know that obviously we are never going to stop medicine research and funding, but IMO I dont think for humans on a whole, it is the best thing for our survival. I guess it is a slightly communist view, the good of everyone is more important than the good of 1 person.

anyway that is just what i think.

note: I know other factors also effect how long we live, like mass production of food, techonolgy etc etc

Ok, here is my take on your point: What you are saying really boils down to the idea of counteracting the concept of "survival of the fittest", which is not necessarily the same as natural selection. It's often a point of contention among Darwinists that survival of the fittest doesn't occur naturally among all species but humans. In fact, many species that live in packs nurture members that are ailing. Humans took it a step further by finding resources, above the practical, for curing said ailments.

Another one of your points it's the adaptation of creature to their environmental changes (you reference the fact that insects have been known to build immunities to pesticides), but you're forgetting that much of modern medicine is built on the same principle, strengthening our natural immune systems. That's what vaccines are built for, and in fact, our species is much stronger now then we were even 100 years ago.

You're not crazy, and there is validity to your point. But all good arguments have good contentions. These are all just elements to consider.

lets hope the snip worked :| (edit:no it didnt >.<)

anyway
It is true vaccines do that, but if we let the disease run rampant, those who would naturally surive it would pass on that gene that would make the next generation already immune to the disease (well atleast if they didnt they would die off anyway).

but yeah it is hard to make a point without screwing up someplace, and really if you read it, you would see that if we didnt have medicine, our immune systems would be strong enough to handle alot of things without medicine so our population would grow anyway :|

it is great when you can poke holes in your own ideas LOL

As I've said before though, it's a part of our nature to nurture our own. Again, we aren't the only species in nature to do that. It would be counter-intuitive to our species to just let disease run rampant. Thus, it would be counter-intuitive to nature. It could be argued that we've taken medicine on the course that nature intended.

Certainly, at certain turns, we could have, and probably should have taken considerations in our development to better work in tandem with our environment, but I think many would contend that medicine is not among them.

 

[Acaroid]

not EVERYONE... just most people XD more about the overall survival of the speices.
I guess Ive seen much logans run one 2 many times :|

You mean not all people are doomed? I don't know but I find it rather depressing that human kind might be around until the end of time. There must be something better out there... that will kill us all.

Well unless the earth comes up and kicks our butt, or a metor hits us, or the sun explodes or aliens come kick our butts... I dont think much could kill us off... maybe a super bug...and without the medicine anymore we would all die XD

 

[Borrowed Time]

=) I find it quite interesting how a lot of people seem to have this mentality of culling the population. Then again, they generally also have the "you first" mentality. *grin* If the earth is going to kill us off, it will kill us off. Then again, humanity is quite resilient and breeds like bacteria. :shrug: I'm making sure to eat as many cows as I can to help combat the methane problem, though. Other then that, I don't really worry about it. ^_^

 

[Juraz]

No such thing as survival of the fittest anymore in human society everyone is carried too far by Medicine,family etc. Funny thing is it will probably be our end due to making us soft.

 

[bluepilot]

I think that the whole world needs a one child policy like (it was) in china to slow down population growth and help reduce the strain on the environment.

Any attempts at restraining population growth though, will untimatly mean eventually resorting to barbaric means or severly impeding on the rights of the individual.

The best method I can think of, is to give every woman and child, after going through puberty, in the world the pill for free (not males of course). In the form of a capsule that can be fitted under the skin, until they choose to have a child. But, even this raises many ethical issues.

So, I think there will be some kind of impending environmental disastor that will finish most of us off in the end.

Any real attempts to save the environment now would have to be pretty extreme. Attempts so far are just ripples in an ocean of impending iceburgs.