Debate : 10631


Off-Topic / Debate / 10631	10630 \| 10632

Subject:	Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2001 03:51:47 GMT
Viewed:	201 times

Christopher Weeks wrote: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes: > > > Bottom line, we're heading for a planet wide catastrophe, and SOON, and we > need to > > What are you thinking of when you say soon Tom? I'd give it 30-100 years. Sounds about right to me, and that's within (hopefully) my lifetime, so I consider that soon ;-) > > do something about it. So here comes the actual debate part... > > > > What CAN we do about it? > > Nothing. > > > NOW, not in the next couple of centuries? Is education > > "the answer"? > > I think that it is ultimately the only solution that can actually address the > problem. But how do we get there and how do we speed it up? The answer is > that it would be so costly, that we are unwilling to do so. We will have to > ride it out. And if it's a big'n then we're just SOL. Yeah, but that really sucks, doesn't it? I would rather have a plague that wiped half the planet's population (or left 90% of the women infertile) than a catastrophe that might wipe us ALL out, or take us below the sustainable population level. > > I don't think so. It is ONE of the answers, but it's going to affect > > slow changes, and I don't know if the planet has that much time. What > > else can we do? > > What do you think? > > I don't seriously think we will choose to save both the planet and > technologically sophisticated human beings unless one of two things happens: > space travel or a Vingean technological singularity that would change all the > rules. The problem is, we have to recognize a point where saving the planet saves us. I'm no Greener, but I do know we need to have a sustainable biological system to keep US alive longterm (at least without being miserable saps living on all synthesized food). Figuring out where "the line" is between sustainable/non-sustainable before we cross it is the key problem, and humans are too selfish a species to do so, unfortunately (IMO). That's why I'm hoping for folding space to give us other planets to screw up, giving us more time to come to our senses as a species as a whole ;-) -- Tom Stangl ***http://www.vfaq.com/ ***DSM Visual FAQ home ***http://ba.dsm.org/ ***SF Bay Area DSMs

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
(...) Gotcha...soon enough for you to have to deal with it. (...) Amending that to be more in line with what I said later, I mean that we _won't_ do anything, not that we couldn't. (...) Sure, but what can you do? (...) Sure. Anyone who you could (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
(...) Tom, let me see if I understand your reasoning for suggesting the 90% female infertility rate. What you're suggesting seems to be: Given 100 fertile women and 100 fertile men, the effective maximum (barring twins and/or technological (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
(...) need to What are you thinking of when you say soon Tom? I'd give it 30-100 years. (...) Nothing. (...) I think that it is ultimately the only solution that can actually address the problem. But how do we get there and how do we speed it up? (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

29 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search