Quote from: walkerpAnd don't even get me started on the big picture stuff.  Basically, we have more than enough food in the world for everyone to eat, and yet some ridiculous amount of people actually starve to death because we in the first world demand convenience and choice (and taking away our consumer choice is now tantamount to taking away our civil liberties).

Dictators who disrupt food production and distribution for political purposes, the grain being diverted for ethanol production because of environmental concerns, and things like political games over genetically modified crops (that cause some countries to refuse grain shipments from the US) have much more to do with than than first world convenience.  Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of Africa and it isn't first world excess that's making people hungry there.  And since you accused proponents of industrialization of crying crocodile tears about the third world, I'm going to make the same accusation here, given the millions of children that have dies as the result of a blanket DDT ban that went much father than was environmentally necessary.  In reality, the concern that everyone shows for the third world, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum or on issues like the environment, seems to be quite selective and shallow.

For me, it comes to this.

I like people.  

Presumably, I'll like my kids and grand kids when/if I ever produce any.

To that end, I think we'd best preserve the earth as best we can.

I am rather convinced by the arguments that global warming is real and man made.  I'm not going to bother convincing Werekoala or Morrow or any of the others that don't buy it, because in my experiance they never will be no matter what.  To that end, I do what I am economically and locationally able.

I try to keep up on things so I know what is what.  

I think that we should preserve critters as best we can for several reasons (among them the fact that stupid things tend to happen to the ecology when speiceise get exterpated, and that eventually bites us in the ass).  

I don't blame people periodically getting attacked by cougars or great white sharks or something on the animals, or see that as a reason for getting rid of them for a couple of reasons:

1) This happens to a vanishingly small number of people.  You are better off crusading for safer bathtubs if you want to save lives.

2) The majority of this can be prevented by knowing how to act in areas where theses things live.

3) Urban sprawl is dumb on half a hundred levels, there is a lot of urban and suburban waste space that already has the infrastructure to work that we should be restoring before we try and put sewer service half way up a mountain.  If you are going to live in the woods, know how to behave in the woods and accept the risks.  

On the question of animals vrs humans on the whole over consumption thing, animals are hardwired to do this because their behavior is geared toward scarcity.  We are the same way.  Our ancestors out on the savannah never knew where their next meal was coming from, so if they found a big food source they'd exploit the hell out of it.  In the modern West most of us aren't living in those conditions, we still have the wiring, but we have the ability to parse out the consequences of our actions in the long term.  Some of us do, some choose not to.

It the West the cause of all ecological and human catastrophy?  No.  The developing world does plenty of that on their own, but that doesn't give folks sitting in the West a pass on how to behave when we have the option to do better.

And yes, those in the developing world should do better if they can.

Article: Why I Left Greenpeace

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/23/dean-kamen-aims-to-clean-water-generate-electricity-with-slings/

QuoteThis one has been making the rounds for a little while now (including a recent appearance on The Colbert Report, viewable after the break), but it hasn't received anything near Segway-like coverage, which is all the more curious given that it's potentially a far more important device. Dubbed the Slingshot, Dean Kamen's latest creation promises to do nothing short of producing clean water from virtually any liquid source (without filters) and generate enough electricity to power about 70 energy efficient light bulbs. What's more, Kamen estimates that the machines would cost between $1,000 and $2,000 which, given the number of people a single one is likely to help, is certainly quite the bargain.

thought the above was very cool, on topic, and while old news, not widely enough known.

Uh... it burns cow dung.

Quote from: walkerpThat sounds awesome!  Let's bring it on!

Walker, do you really hate humanity so much? Humans might be part of the problem for this world's ecology. They are also the solution.

Quote from: AnthrobotWalker, do you really hate humanity so much? Humans might be part of the problem for this world's ecology. They are also the solution.

He hates humanity... just not people.


Brought to you by soylent green.

Hi, I'm soylent green and I accept humanities fate.

I will say something extreme and/or heretical (well, nothing compared to walker's though), depending on your point of view..

Thing is, no matter where you stand on the environmentalism issue, Earth is remarkably resilient, and even with all the crap we do to it, in the end the planet will be fine and just lick its wounds.. (Short of, of course a blast coming from the Death Star)

We will end up killing each other (or become extinct) first before "destroying" mother Earth.

The killing each other part is what I am worried most about.

Solution?: Put more money into space exploration so that mankind can spread into other worlds and alleviate the strain we have put on this one.