My concern is actually at specific carryin capacity of the land. There will be a point where we've fucked it up too much in certain places and we it won't sustain us. What then? If society's mindset has shown us, we're not very keen on eco responsibility, it's all about what we can get now. Are we really going to take a look, for example, at an area like - i dont know...LA - and ask ourselves: "How long until this place is inhospitable and unable to maintain us?"

That's the impact I'm concerned about because, it just might sneak up on us and by then it will be too late.

We have the power to wipe out most of humanity. We don’t have the power to wipe out most animal life on the planet.

Yes, it has been proven that we can hurt mankind but the rest of the inhabitants of the planet will still be here.

That was the original thought but after studying the blast sites over decades we found that the only animal that can not survive in those areas are mankind. The animal life was back to normal in a few years, the plant life was back after three seasons. The birds eat the plants and live if we ate them we would die even today.

You need to understand that billions of barrels of oil seep out of the ocean floor every year. Microbes feed on it. This has been happening for at least a million years yet you hardly notice it. Sometimes you will see clumps of hardened oil wash up on the shore. That is not from oil spills it is what seeped up from the ocean floor. The ocean will get rid of the oil faster than man can clean it up.

We did that and man was hurt by it back in the 60’s and 70’s the wildlife survived. That was when President Nixon created the EPA to clean up the mess we were making. The environmental nuts have taken the laws created to protect us and turned it around to attack our industry. Dioxin and other chemicals were dumped whole sale into our ground water and we started having birth defects and frogs with three eyes. Most if not all were cleaned up in a decade. And now we know better. You see it was done already and wildlife survived, man was in danger not the planet.

Can’t be done by man. We nuked an island and the trees came back in months. Mount Saint Helens erupted and wiped out a huge area of trees, where man was involved the trees took longer to come back where nature was allowed to do its thing the trees came back in 18 months.  Life his harder to beat than you think.

You are correct, we can hurt man but the wildlife keeps going.

Right, that is what I wrote in my last post. The impact is all on man with some animals hurt on the fringe. Watch the series life after people, after 200 years almost everything that man has built will fall apart and after 10k years all the modern crap we have build will be gone. We will only have the pyramids and stone structures left and most of that will be covered by wildlife. Man has only been the dominant species for the last 10k years and if man were to walk away from the planet in 10k years three will be no sign of man ever having been here. man cam not destroy the planet, only mankind at best.

No middle ground here the only two options are either you have the impact or you don't.  That is a classic false dilemma. Then the dribble turns to appeal to emotion.

You tend to forget how small we are.  The Sun is gigantic and getting hotter.  The Earth core temperature is also heating which in turn would cause the oceans to heat up (think of a pot of water the most effective way to heat up water is when heat is applied in close proximity and heating up the air would take forever and have very little impact).

Here are a few scholarly journals:

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

"“According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex."

One can be lead to postulate that the same thing is happening on mars, venus, and other planets.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030207.shtml

The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4048902

"Recent results have indicated strong correlations between climate parameters and solar activity. Upper troposphere and stratosphere temperatures have been found to vary in phase with the 10- to 12-year solar activity cycle. On a longer time scale, the global temperature, particularly the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature, has been found to be nearly perfectly correlated with the long-term variation of solar activity."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007P&SS...55..158R

This article was a fantastically interesting read because they used tree rings (yes, tree rings!) and they believe that the impact is from solar activity and there's a cycle! Yet, another articles that says the earth's climate goes in a cycle!

Here's an article about neptune for you (we can't be having an affect on neptune (if you feel some how we are I think you're giving too much credit to humans.  This shows that its has to do with the sun/solar system) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

"If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment."  The fact with mars leads me to believe that it has something to do with the solar system.

It seems that people put a lot of faith in that man is causing this whole GW thing.  If man is (which I don't believe. Again I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of earth. We should) causing GW India and China have given the finger to all of this. 

India and China populations are way bigger than the U.S and E.U. combined.  The line of agrument is that they're ONLY developing countries.  Yeah developing both are developing fast.  Both are using more coal.  Both have auto sales that have exploded (maybe we should export some of our cars to them).  Both having more people don't they have a great potential of messing up the environment? 

Oh wait, we're suppose to lead by example.  I'm sure that's going to make a difference with China and India, for they're going to do what's best for their country.

the_peoples_party, I wasn't referring to climate change in this instance. Even if man can't influence the power of the sun or earth's core, there is plenty that is possible in regards to pollution and nuclear catastrophies, enough so that it would be a real threat if it I was abused as a weapon or an horrible accident occurred or simple carelessness. 

Paladin, even if  nuclear fallout doesn't kill animal and plantlife, it kills humans and that is my mainconcern. What do I care if nature still exists if human kind has been erradicated?

Bottom line is that technology offers the means for massmurder and sustained destruction of our environment so that it would be hostile for our survival. And collective suicide as a species goes against every ethical moral norm and religion (except for some doomsday cults maybe). I am not concerned with the universe at large, just what we can do to impact out existance with the means at our disposal, and that is plenty.

If what you write is true then you took my statement out of context to put up a straw man.

The last catstrophy was in 79 AD I thnk when mankind went from several hundred million to tens of thousands. it took less than a thousand years to get back to those population levels again. So wiping out man is not as easy as you make it out to be. Yes, it can be done but if you leave just a few thousand scattered around the Earth the odds are that we will come back quickly.

Are you concerned about the environment or are you concerned with man?  Because, it sure seems like you're trying to play the whole outfield.

Man has had technology that can wipe out whole populations for centuries.  The technology we have now just makes it easier and less complex to do it.

As long as there is a remnant of mankind in just aboout an senario we'll survive.  In some senarios it would be more difficult but the way our bodies can adapt and the way our brains can think just like what Paladin said.

I think he is only interested in mankind, that is a good thing in my opinion. Any problem we make we can fix.

Taxes=guns.  Figure of speech.

Draginol: "Second, it really should be 3 rows, not 2:

False: Climate Change isn't man made nor is any significant issue occurring.

True: Climate change is occurring and it's caused by man

True/Doom: Climate change is occurring but it's NOT caused by man.

So you thus add an even worse scenario: We spend the money, cause a global depression and STILL get an environmental catastrophe."

 

He discusses this at about 1:55 in the video. Also, JU's quote function isn't working for me.

She is interested in both.

I am not aware of century old technology that could wipe out whole populations and make the environment unliveable and poisenous for continued survival. But if you do, please tell me, I always like to know things like that, for some reason it's fascinating.

Concern for the environment and concern for mankind goes hand-in-hand. We need the environment to survive. It would survive without us, but we cannot exist without it. How is it possible to seperate the two? Unless you are an environmental extremist who believe that nature would be better off without humans at all, of course.

Tell me how you fix the destruction of the rainforest, or the detox of tipped rivers and lakes in China (they poisened alot of the their freshwater) - how do you fill the Aral lake with water again, push back the Sahara (man causes the onward movement - at least I remember something to that effect from school, but I am not absolutely certain about it), erradicate nuclear fallout from the Bikini Atoll, get rid of all the trash and toxic waste in the oceans..  We need a healthy environment, even more so in the future with the global population rising steadily. If less of that is there to go around between more and more people - I see a pretty big potential for violence there. Scarcity of resources like fresh water and clean air, healthy soil and food etc.  is a bigger threat to national security than all existing terror groups put together, even if it isn't in your own country. Those who don't have it in their region will migrate - what other choice do they have? So it's not just about ethical reasons or pure survivalist reasons, it is also a question of war and peace.

Mustard gas and its derivatives have been around for a long time first used in mass during WWI there are still bridges that were soaked in the stuff that can’t be touched or crossed to this day. Plagues and viruses have been around for thousands of years that are waiting for people to start spreading again. Swine flu comes to mind. the last time we had an outbreak of swine flu was just after WWI if I remember correctly it took out 25 million people It is getting ready for a comeback. Put that in the hands of someone that wants to wage a bio war and we had problems. Just so you know the flu is most contagious 5 days before the person starts to show symptoms. You feel healthy but your passing around a deadly virus. Most viruses are easily spread. What was done to spread these things a thousnd years ago was to get infected rats and people sent into towns to force people to run for their lives. So the tech stuff has gotten better but it is the same old thing.

Your examples are good - but most (except for mustard gas) have not that much to do with technology. Sending someone sick as a trojan horse is sly and deceptive, but hardly technolgy of massdestruction. And it didn't render the environment or town/region unliveable and toxic for the greeks who followed behind.

Mustard gas was the beginning of hightech warfare. WW1 was the first modern war where technology started to play a more dominant role. Airplanes and huge artillery, machine guns, gas attacks etc. - that is a sliver of what modern weapon technology enables people to do now. But it isn't even a century old yet, and it was the first time modern technology was used for purposes of war. Before that battles were fought differently, not less devastating in terms of human lives, but with more pillaging, raping and burning down whole cities. The 30 year war  during the 17th century in Europe killed so many people that wolves were back in central Europe and whole regions existed where nobody was left alive. But that wasn't due to technology, just good old famine, disease and foreign troops passing through.

You are not making much logical sense here.  People have always been thinking of ways to kill and help people.  When Europeans came over to the States, they purposely gave Native American blankets that came into contact from dead people that had the plague.

Just because we have technology doesn't make us any more intelligent/superior.  Technology has been piggy backed on other technology. 

The Gastraphetes could fire a stone of 40 pounds (18.9 kg) some 200 to 300 yards.  It was used successfully in 397 BC during the siege of Motya. Nearly 91 years later, Demetrius's Poliorcetes used at catapult that could fire a 172 lb (78 kg) boulder between 600 to 1000 meters.  This was successfully used around 306 BC against the fleet of Ptolemy I at Salamis in Cyprus. Some of these catapults could fire stones further than ANY Napoleonic cannon.

There is historical evidence that that the Hittites (1500 BC to 1200 BC) sent victims of plague into enemy lands.  The Assyrian empire was around for about 2400 BC to 612 BC, which was located mainly between Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  Historians have recently uncovered that the Assyrians used a parastic fungus of rye known as ergotism laced on their bows and other weapons and also put into their enemies food supplies.  During the 1st Sacred War in Greece about 590 BC, the Athens used hellebore, a toxic plant, to poison the water supply of the besieged town of Kirrha.

High Tech warfare has been around for quite some time. I think its just your lack of knowledge of history and maybe that somehow we people are so much more superior in our intellects those neonates from the past. 

p.s. Whole populations have been wiped off the earth.  What do you think happened to the Hitties and Assyrians.

Actually it was small pox but close enough.

Don't forget the Mayans and most of the native populaton in America.

Thanks, I don't know why I typed the plague.

The moral of the story is that we'll survive nearly all castrophies.  To wipe out all 6.5 billion people will be something. If there is a remant of people left the human race will continue.

The reason why I didn't say the Mayans is because we're not sure what exactly happened to them, the Incas, or the Toltecs.  Granted they are no longer here with us, so you're right.

No matter how you spin it though, archaic people simply couldn't have affected human life on earth on a global scale (even if they had pretty amazing technology for their time), but that is certainly possible today. Besides, I never really contested that some form of technology was around for a long long time, just the scale of the impact said tech had.

Oh ok just forget about the Roman empire or the Babylonian empire (just these 2 examples controlled most of the world).  I'm not spinning it any way.  The world population around 1 A.D was between 100 to 200 million people.  These crazy weapons that I listed there were around since 300 BC.  By 1 A.D, they had even more impressive weapons. Plus with the population of the world being smaller it was easier to influence the world.

Those 2 empires that I listed above had a huge impact on the past and where we are at now. 

P.S. Oh yeah the Roman empire (just one example. It would probably help you if you continued to forget about them) affected the earth on a global scale.

P.P.S I'm not spinning any of that I'm just using history.

P.P.P.S I think the technology that was used in the past is just as amazing and impressive as what we have today.

P.P.P.P.S. I might move this conversation over to a new thread since this current conversation is no longer going in the direction that I'm sure the author intended.

I think you are mixing two different aspects together that have vastly different meanings: cultural impacts and longlasting negative threatening technological impacts. Culturally, you are absolutely right. Predating highcultures certainly influenced our development and also our technology. The other issue, I don't think so.

The romans had a huge empire and influence our culture, laws and customs (English language for instance has a lot of latin via french in it), they built cities that still exist in Germany, and  aqueducts that could almost still be used, after all that time. But I don't know of anything technological wise that the romans did that impacts our live here 2000 years later in a negative or threatening way.

I am relatively sure that todays modern technology could/has the means to impact the lives of people in a mostly negative way in the centuries or millenia to come. This fact is the difference for me beween technology of the romans and our modern technology. Add to that the fact that our knowledge about technology and its sideeffects is not growing parallel to the development of new technology itself - meaning that we can do things  with technology without really knowing what exactly the consequences would be, and you have one dangerous constellation. And to bank all hopes on the development of new technology to repaire the damage done already is very risky and reckless IMO. It's a lethal cycle, and it is one that the romans never had to worry about, even if they had been a political worldpower and were amazing architects and had inside plumbing and floorheating, skyscrapers (multistory appartment blocks) and a ton of other things.

PS I've been in Rome and Ostia and they are great cities.

Never broke if you can just print more money.

As for the war, it's probably too late for Obama to surrender in Iraq, but who knows maybe he can in Afghanistan/ That should save lots of money for new stimulus and health care schemes. Of course now that the left is in power the anti-war movement is very quiet here. In fact, I haven't heard a peep from them on any news networks, including Obama's private news outlet NBC and it;s subsidiaries.

Afghanistan.. can't afford to lose there. Do you want the taleban to have nuclear capabilities? If they gain even more influence in Pakistan than they already do.. it is a pretty creepy outlook to have terrorists with Abombs in their arsenal. No other choice but to win that one, or the outcome could be worse than before. It is's a messed up situation in a basically ungoverned country (no central government that has any power outside the capital) and the decades of civil war and terror did their part to destroy most functioning infrastructure. It isn't really a wonder ISAF and coaltion troops lose ground when there is not even a basic functioning administrative body that could take over after the taleban have been driven off somewhere. The US should have done what the Romans did.. conquer and then rule the land after the maxime divide et impera. You have the US military in command and work together with the locals and hand responsibilities off to them but regain oversight. Democracy isn't the right thing for everybody right off the bat, people need to learn how to be democratic first, how not to be corrupt and not to use nepotism for everything, how to have a functioning administration on every level - from local to national - to have a good legal code etc. Roman imperialism shaped Europe and was a grain for western civilization after all, so it can be positive.

Not very leftist thoughts, but it's pragmatic and in the interest of my national security to have stable country there. And it would be a good way to get rid of over 90% of opium and save lives that way if there is less heroin around.

Yeah, I'm personally a Trillionaire myself... too bad it's Zimbabwe money. Will the US be far behind in the future?

Impressive..Do you know what Zimbabwe's national deficit is like? Must be one impressive number

Time will tell for the US, but I doubt that you'll have to print bills with 14 zero's anytime soon.

we are walking the path, without "change" (how ironic), we will continue down the path that has ruined zimbabwe