Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Do you think the human race would of advanced more by not advancing? page 2

  1. #11
    Bushrat's Avatar
    Bushrat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    By the way, another reason that I love civilisation is that it gives people like me who have a genetic disease, which cannot be cured by simply eating and living as our ancestors did, a fighting chance. Selfish of me perhaps, but I value my own life above anything else.

  2. #12
    eva's Avatar
    eva
    eva is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    249
    global warming is a NATURAL PROCESS that is a NORMAL CYCLE our planet gos through every once in a while - in order to get past the ice age we are living in for example. earth strives for homeostasis >> this is still iceage>> not the equilibrium state for this planet.
    challenge yourself
    i blog here http://theprimalwoman.blogspot.com/

  3. #13
    Tahl's Avatar
    Tahl is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Gator View Post
    Something ---another thing---I don't understand.

    A bird's nest is part of nature. A beaver dam is also natural. So is a beehive. Do you see where I am going? All of these constructs are natural. However, when a human critter builds a nest we say that nature was destroyed. When some animal, bird or whatever makes its home, some part of the earth is destroyed too.

    You may say that those other simple homes of birds, beavers, and bees, etc. don't do as much damage to the planet as the homes that we build, but they do damage the planet. The earth does work to wear down those critter homes and return the resources to the earth. But that is also true for human structures. It just takes longer for the earth to reclaim its material and space when dealing with human edifices.

    Why aren't the structures that we humans put on this planet also considered to be natural? Aren't we part of this planet? We are not aliens, are we?
    Quick reply for now (I'm at work): Scale and carrying capacity. A beaver dam is not the same as Three Gorges dam and has nowhere near the same environmental impact. And many (most?) human-built structures tend to be built using non-recyclable materials and chemicals compounds that don't occur naturally and that will not be broken down.

  4. #14
    Daemonized's Avatar
    Daemonized is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    2,253
    I think even early humans have more of an impact on the environment that you would initially think. The deforestation alone has a huge effect. I also believe that the global warming is cyclic, but I also think that burning the massive amounts of fossil fuels that we have has greatly changed the cycle too.

  5. #15
    Gator's Avatar
    Gator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    122
    Tahl: About scale, I agree. About things breaking down. Everything breaks down, it just takes time. I have a feeling that even plastics will break down sooner or later----geological time. How long? Depends. But you know what? The Earth will survive. Long after we are gone, the Earth will be here. Maybe, no--probably, a different Earth. (Did you know that once our life forms could not have existed on this planet.) Environmental impact--whose environment? The owl in my barn is ruining my environment. The robin in my cherry tree is destroying my fruit. The beaver dam that floods my field had a drastic affect on my environment. By the way, the city council that is putting in malls and Levittowns closer and closer to me is also destroying my environment and those things are just as natural. This world is my environment as well as it belongs to the other animals. All of us sharing this world destroy environment of something and even deprive something of life so that we may live. That's the way it is. Life goes on.

    Don't start claiming that I am a nature hater. I almost live in the woods and mountains. Before moving to this part of the world it was oceans and tropical forests. I always sought what was wild and untamed. That is the world I prefer. My point is that humans are part of nature. Our habitations are just as natural as bird nests and gorilla nests and rabbit warrens. My ideal home is at least three or four miles past the last light. I spent many years without utilities. All my choice. However I do not think that the things erected by other humans--their cities and such--are not 'natural'. They are of creatures of the Earth, they are natural.

    People yearn for the stars. They think StarTrek and bold adventures to new worlds. I am the one who will stay when they go and cheer as the grasses break up pavements and buildings and reclaim the less developed world that was. That will be a natural process eliminating natural structures made by some of Earth's natural creatures.

    Wow! I just got started and sped to a finish. I hope it makes some sense.

  6. #16
    Gator's Avatar
    Gator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    122
    Daemonized: We are beef eaters. Gimme meat and then more meat, is our cry. But just think of this, there is more pollution in the atmosphere from all of those farting cows than there is from cars running down highways, or whatever other fossil fuels are being burned. Still, gimmee meat, right?

    I do think that there are many ways to lessen environmental impact and that they should be implemented, but watch the city councils. Most of those politically minded folk might decide to eliminate the cattle instead of the SUV's. After all, jerky doesn't go that well with tofu and sprouts on Ezekiel bread. (Just a dig here, don't take it to heart. Not meant for anyone on this forum anyway)

  7. #17
    Gator's Avatar
    Gator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    122
    All meat eaters: My post about the tofu and sprout eaters brought to mind something else. Scientists are now capable of producing meat (beef?) in the laboratory. No life; just blobs of meat. It is a tale that is moving through vegetarian circles lately. Wow! A way to get a 'humane' steak.

    Not sure how I feel about that. Sounds too much like a soylent green type thing. Maybe it will go good with horseradish.

  8. #18
    Grol's Avatar
    Grol is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    919
    That United Nations cow pollution story is pretty old. I'm surprised it still has teeth, but googling it reveals more silly CW. The original report was bogus. In response the EPA reported 7.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions came from all agriculture. That's cows, chickens, plant crops, everything. The transportation sector was at 30%. What did come out of the debate, which was heated and led by a militant anti American vegan from the UN, is that buying local is just about the best thing we can do to lower emissions. The Bush EPA was also guilty of fudging some numbers. Should cows or trucks be credited for shipping cows? Independent research still couldn't validate the UNs claims when giving cows all the possible credit. The best they could do was double the EPA number, but most agree 10-12% was about right for agriculture and 25-30% covered transportation.

    I could have this wrong, but I blogged about it way back when and I think I got it right.

  9. #19
    Grol's Avatar
    Grol is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    919
    Another interesting angle that came out of that old debate was that grass fed cattle produced more methane and had a bigger carbon footprint than grain fed feedlot beef. The grass fed supporters countered with all that organic soil being a carbon sink and suggesting they had a net negative carbon footprint. So the feedlot folks felt they should be able to calculate the 100s of thousands of acres they were sparing with consolidated operations. They had some strong numbers and by the time both sides finished, well, beef production had a very tiny carbon footprint according to the industry. Trees were worse than cows.

  10. #20
    Gator's Avatar
    Gator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    122
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    There was a recent Australian study along lines that livestock was just about as bad a polluter as 'factories and cars'. My point is not that we have a problem with too many cows and that we should become chemical and plant eaters. I only wished to say that there is more to the pollution thing than burning fossil fuels.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •