Do you care about our future?

I care about the future we’re collectively leaving for my kids. So I do my best to keep my footprint low, do what I can to live lightly. And I support efforts to mitigate our impact on the earth.

Yes, the US uses a disproportionate amount of resources. Yet we have also made efforts to move from an exploitive economy. It’s not an easily solvable problem, and we need to do much much more.

Climate change…yes. CO2 from our emissions is fantasy. Methane and water vapor + other volatile organics is not. Depleting our natural resources and polluting our environment needs to stop. So yes…I care deeply but I’m more of a realist. I think nuclear power is not the right direction. I think we need to re-evaluate how we as individuals use power. I also get angry when people think things like electric cars are going to help when they’ll actually make things worse because of where the electricity really comes from. In general few actually look at the whole picture and often settle for the surface arguments and solutions which are usually polluted with politics and greed. If most of us return to a more natural, agrarian lifestyle many of our problems would be reduced greatly.

For multiple reasons, no. One of them is the fact that before global warming was invented there were fish found living in streams running through certain caves. The streams they live in have what we’d normally think of as toxic levels of naturally occurring sulfuric acid.

To me, that’s a clue that life chooses life.

If civilizations have risen and fallen without having taken like we do, then there’s nothing to say civilization cannot return after a “collapse.” If, as you say, civilizations have all done it, even without the specter of global warming, then it must be something of a natural cycle. So why bother with worry unless that just somehow makes you feel better?

I’m not going to go into a drawn out argument over this. Just making a few observations in response to your question.

I’m much more concerned with the effects on nature, the animal kingdom, loss of habitat, species extinction due to mans contributions. The pollution of our oceans. Humans just need to go, period. I vote for a return of the peaceable kingdom minus humans.

The best thing any of us can do, is stop REPRODUCING!
OTOH it is what it is, and really, in many ways it is already too late, the economic collapse is only getting worse, less resources, more compitition, more violence, more poverty, more crime. When the majority of humans are obsessed with their own survival needs they simply do not have the psychological ability to care about the big picture.
Maslows hierarchy of needs and all that.

I have been lucky to live on beautiful rural mountain properties for years where I was a steward to wildlife, used no chemicals, pesticides, rescued farm animals, lived in harmony and tranquility with nature. I feel honored to have had the lifestyle I had for decades and feel good about my contributions. There is only just so much anyone can do without becoming neurotically obsessed with the imminent gloom and doom out world is up against.

@Coloma is nuts, with all respect.

Stop reproducing? That’s absurd. That way civilization can just die out by itself for lack of people.

What she should have written is – we should stop reproducing at a rate larger than 2.1 (which is the rate needed to be sustainable to normal population given the number of deaths. Of course, the US is already at roughly that population rate, so what Coloma is saying is that it should be the Africans, the Asians, and the South Americans that should stop reproducing at a high rate. While that’s probably correct, that it gets into an entirely different and difficult conversation about race and caucasian influence on society.

All of that said, I would ask @KaY_Jelly – the original poster, to answer:

who is the WE in the sentence: “Shouldn’t we do something now to preserve our future and the earth we live on?”

[As a final comment, I am suspect of any sort of sentence that starts with ‘shouldn’t’, because that means the person’s mind is made up and is not going to be open to logic or discussion.]

@elbanditoroso yeah, eliminating ourselves is not a viable option LOL.

The concern is entirely justified. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and we need to reduce our dependence on greenhouse gas intensive energy sources asap. The sad thing is we’ve known enough to justify mitigation for decades now, but the levels of emissions keep on going up. Too much vested interest I guess… as always…

Great source of info here if you’re interested..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

@elbanditoroso @ARE_you_kidding_me

I think it’s a great option! lol
Okay fine, I’ll concede to the ratio you present, still…even if no more bouncing baby homo sapiens were born for the next 100 years we would still be at critical mass. The predictions of the millions and millions ( all time high in history ) of senior citizens that will come of age in the next 50 years is staggering. This fact alone will be an impossible taxation on our economy let alone the world.

The natural order of things is for a species to die after it’s reproductive shelf life is spent. Now we are encouraging people to fucking live to be 120?
Insanity knows no bounds. Hey, I am 54 in another month and as far as I am concerned I could go at any time.

I think humans obsession with their mortality is obscene, and it defies the natural order of the old dying out to make room for the young.
I am coming from a purely biological standpoint that I believe in wholeheartedly.
I am not religious but the ” go forth and multiply” no longer applies to the human race.
It’s time we become an endangered species, ( which we already are without whelping more cubs in the lions den of self destruction. )

Human ego dictates we are somehow superior to all other life, I disagree, we are, infact, extremely inferior and for all the “evolution” that has gone into the development of our big brains the average rat is smarter when it comes to intelligence and resourceful living.

Almost every option we have is a temporary solution to old problems and we will be wise to predict the future from other factors. We will run through fuels on the way to sustainability. we will have other sources for food and energy. Saying “right now is not sustainable” is correct. But not all that relevant.

Some time ago, in a meeting of all the Presidentia Science advisors, they stated their fear for the future was depopulation. Ageing people do not produce children. The overpopulation numbers may be way off. It is something to consider and overpopulation may be less of a bother than many expect. Look how many aeas are getting older and older.

Like Japan.

I’m concerned about it but, sadly, I feel that without global will and consensus to make it a top priority, and without cooperation among all nations, it’s a hopeless cause.

“The natural order of things is for a species to die after it’s reproductive shelf life is spent. Now we are encouraging people to fucking live to be 120?
Insanity knows no bounds. Hey, I am 54 in another month and as far as I am concerned I could go at any time.
I think humans obsession with their mortality is obscene, and it defies the natural order of the old dying out to make room for the young.”

You’re kidding yourself if you think other animals aren’t obsessed with their mortality as well. Reproductive or not, every animal’s first and foremost instinct is to survive, no matter what. I guarantee you any animal that could preserve itself like humans can would do so without a second thought.

@Darth_Algar True, but it still comes down to survival of the fittest. I do not think the human organism is any more or less special than any other. Luck of the DNA, we could all have just as easily come into existence as a Cherry tree or a Woodpecker or a Sea Urchin. Lucky us! lol
Now, before everyone flips out and loses their marbles over what I am about to say, well….the reality is that we, as humans, ARE animals, and in the animal kingdom the young, the old, the infirm and the defective are naturally the first to go. Animals do not continue to reproduce when their resources are scarce, or when over crowding lends itself to exorbitant stress.

The weak, old and infirm are culled, some at the hands, paws, teeth and claws of their own parents, the herd, the flock and the numerous predators that keep the the species in question in a healthy state, most likely to succeed if you will.
Now, before anyone flips out and accuses me of advocating the culling of the inferior of the species, just take a breath and think about this ultimate truth. It IS a truth, one that our enormous human egos don’t care to address, but, as a line from a new movie states so profoundly… ” Truth has no temperature.” I am NOT saying we SHOULD resort to killing off the inferior, defective, unproductive and infirm, but…..we are in the situation we are at this time because the human ego runs roughshod against the grain of nature.

The unsustainability of our way of life bothers me and has done for as long as I can remember. I am reconciled to it now as there is nothing we can do about it. Well that’s not true there are things that could be done but I know we are not going to do them. Mankind will survive but our present ‘civilisation’ won’t.

My only concern about the future is that we will kill ourselves worrying about it. We produce 8–10 time more food per acre than we did a century ago. in fact we are expanding our resources faster than we are expanding our population. We just don’t seem to like how it’s being done so we spend all our time trying to kill the golden goose.

crops are expanding through the use of pesticides and genetics, we hate that. We are able to plant multiple crops per year by the use of machinery such as tractors and harvesters, we hate those because they use fossil fuels. We are able to transport them long distances through the use of trucks and keep them fresh through the use of chemicals, more hated processes. And of course while we’re doing all this and complaining that these things kill us, we’re living longer.

Seems to me things are getting better not worse. Technology will continue to solve these problems if we let it. My only fear is that we’ll kill off our technology, our society, and our prospects for the future by our insane attempt to limit ourselves to what we think is best for us. Frankly I like the progress we’ve made.

My concern is intense and rationally based. My frustration with those who ignorantly deny the adverse impact of some portions of human “civilization” infuriates me. Those of us who are part of the problem could still live very well without doing so much harm. Those who use denial as an excuse to resist change represent the worst example of selfishness. They deserve to suffer soonest and most severely for the consequences of their lifestyle.

I find that I care less as the years go by, because:

1) So few people seem to care at all, do my own efforts really make a difference?

2) I don’t have any children or grandchildren. If other people aren’t concerned about the health and welfare of their own descendants, why should I take up the cause on their behalf?

Paul was a bit of a videotape hoarder. (Ok, I’m being generous and polite when I say “a bit.”) He had hundreds of videotapes, all of which had been untouched and forgotten, boxed-up and in storage, for many years. (The 1985 Wimbledon men’s finals, anyone?) I recently cleared-out the mess and got rid of all those old tapes.

I didn’t like the idea of sending so many videotapes to a landfill, so I paid $112.90 to a company that takes apart the cassettes and recycles, reuses, or safely discards all of the components. Then I asked myself, “Why bother?” There are already countless millions of videotapes in landfills, leaching toxins as they deteriorate. Did I waste all that money and effort?

First of all I want to thank everyone for their responses.

@elbanditoroso

You said:

”All of that said, I would ask @KaY_Jelly – the original poster, to answer:

who is the WE in the sentence: “Shouldn’t we do something now to preserve our future and the earth we live on?”

[As a final comment, I am suspect of any sort of sentence that starts with ‘shouldn’t’, because that means the person’s mind is made up and is not going to be open to logic or discussion.]”

My response to you is that:

I asked this question not because I do not want to be open or because I want no part in logic or discussion, in fact asking the question is only proof that I want to be open and discuss the situation at hand.

When I say “WE” I mean us the people, the humans, of this world, we are the only ones who can fix this. Denial and ignorance and even pointing fingers is not going to fix the problems that we are facing. It’s really about finding a solution now.

There is no reason for me to make up my mind, because it is happening, I can choose to accept it or not, you can choose to accept it or not, same as anyone else, but at the same time, this isn’t and individual decision, this is a decision about all of us.

I don’t know if we can fix it, but I can only go by what evidence we have now that shows it is estimated that the oceans could weaken within the next 36 years due to ocean acidification if we do not reduce, by 2050, global CO2 emissions compared to the 1990 level. This statement was issued on ocean acidification by 105 science academy members of the InterAcademy Panel, so it is not a weak or playful statement.

Global warming is linked to mass extinction and that is also supported by several recent studies. I’m not just making this stuff up! Considering all of this I apologize if at the same time I refuse to ignore the problem.

Wikipedia states: “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions. It has also been suggested to have caused the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event, during which 20% of all marine families went extinct. Furthermore, the Permian–Triassic extinction event has been suggested to have been caused by warming.”

Of course we do not know what caused the global warming at that time since there definitely was no industrial revolution at that time, but at this time if we may be contributing to it so shouldn’t we try to fix the problem instead of ignoring it?

Considering that Wikipedia also states:

“Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly more than 0.1 units on the logarithmic scale of pH, representing an approximate 29% increase in H+, and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 pH units (an additional doubling to tripling of today’s post-industrial acid concentrations) by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2, the impacts being most severe for coral reefs and the Southern Ocean.[1][9][22] These changes are predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere. The degree of change to ocean chemistry, including ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways[23] society takes.[24]”

I really do think it would be a shame if my grandchildren and all of our grandchildren who will just turn my daughters age in 2050 are left to clean up and deal with the mess we have left for them, that is of course assuming we survive the ocean acidification.

“At first I thought I was fighting to save rubber trees, then I thought I was fighting to save the Amazon rainforest. Now I realise I am fighting for humanity.”
~Chico Mendes, Rubber tappers’ leader

Not anymore. With overpopulation and climate change, the writing is on the wall. We are doomed! But don’t get too excited. MRSA will get us first!

Since things will keep getting worse, people will eventually catch on that something is wrong, certainly sometime before the streets of Manhattan are ankle deep in water. The only question is whether the damage at that point will be irreversible.

@LostInParadise It already is, humans are foolish creatures, they don’t change most of the time until they are forced to. It is a rare handful that are truly aware and make conscious choices.

@elbanditoroso I just re-read your posting and missed the assumptive statement that I am advocating reproductive bans based on country and race. Those are YOUR sentiments, and they are not only incorrect but assumptive as hell. I propose ALL humans stop reproducing, not only those countries that are grossly over populated. The entire WORLD is grossly over populated.

Communication rule #1 ASK if you are unclear as to exactly what another means. Thanks!

I’m concerned more about the far future (say 10,000 years or more from now) than the immediate future of the human race taking place in your and mine lifetimes.

What am I doing about it? For one thing, I am not fathering children. As Kirk said in Star Trek IV, “this is an extremely primitive and paranoid culture”...

I don’t think we should be increasing the human population until we find a way to solve the problems we have already created for ourselves.

(I do not believe the world is overpopulated however. I know my previous post seems to suggest that).

With proper management of the earth’s resources the planet could hold many more people equitably, hundreds of billions if we built cities on the surface of the sea….

The real problem as I see it is a lack of vision. Fear tends to dominate, a zero sum game of take before they take from you…

@NanoNano Welcome to the pod. :-)
I dunno..I applaud you choosing to not sire offspring, but you really don’t think the world is overpopulated? I dunno…I sure do. When we are wiping out other species right and left to support our heavy impact, well….I’d rather see less humans and more Sumatran Tigers and White Rhinos and rejuvenated rain forests.

Species extinction is probably the greatest crime the human race has ever committed, I agree with you there. But the human footprint is not and does not have to be as large as we assume.

Did you know that you can fit the entire population of the earth into an area the size of Jacksonville, Florida if you gave every human being one square foot of ground to stand on?

Obviously that’s not living conditions, but think about it. Every human being on the planet could physically be placed in an area of a few hundred square miles. Now expand that by a factor of say 100, and you have a very very large city housing the entire human population of the planet, and the rest of the planet is vacant of human activity…

So its possible. We have the scientific knowledge now to transform the way we live, renewable energy, sustainable agriculture…

One of the biggest problems as I see it is militarization. Imagine how well off the American population would be if we didn’t spend ¾ of all our tax dollars on the military? Schools, hospitals, food, energy all free, infrastructure brand spanking new..

@NanoNano I certainly agree with military spending and as far as assembling the entire poulation in an area the size of Jacksonville Fl. Lets do it, it will make it easier to exterminate the majority. lol ;-)

LOL, How do we get them all down there? Offer free tickets to Disneyland?

Patrick Lee wrote a series of science fiction novels (three altogether) and in one of the novels, he had the entire population of the United States get in their cars and drive to one central location. Logistically on the surface, it seems impossible, but its not.

You could empty the entire country pretty quickly if you could brainwash everyone to do this (which is sortof what happened in the novels) – once they all got there they sat around waiting, and essentially all starved to death doing so…

@NanoNano I live in the CA. Goldrush zone, the way I figure, we stage a great hoax, like Rubies materializing on Jacksonville beaches. We shall create a precious gem rush. Lead the little lambs to slaughter. Or…mass hypnosis. haha