Man vs nature and global warming--religioun vs non-religion

[_asbestosman]

What would maximize the number of man / spirit years left for the earth? Would cutting down the population to sustainable rates give the maximum total, or would letting the population continute to grow and pollute the earth do it?

It seems to me that the only way we can cut down on polluting the earth is by cutting down on the nubmer of people on it. But doing so may cut down on the total number of man years the world would see. Furthermore, cutting down population carries its own disadvantages of probably requiring huge wars to enforce it as I doubt everyone will be compliant otherwise.

When I think of alternative to oil, I'm not sure it's going to help things. Hydrogen cars will pollute the earth with water vapor which is a greenhouse gas stronger than carbon dioxide. Besides, the hydrogen fuel must come from somwhere. Hydroelectric power disrupts water ecosystems. Nuclear power has some hazardous waste (but hey, it's not CO2). Geothermal also disrupts life and nature. It seems that the only way to minimize this disruption is to not exist.

Furthermore I start questioning the wisdom of nature. Does nature really know best or does it not care at all? Is it really wrong to fight nature as when nature gives us smallpox or the black plague? At what point is disrupting nature for man's comfort fine even if some other creatures die? Is it always harmful to us when we disrupt nature? Is it wrong to use genetically modified foods since nature should know better than us? Is it wrong to domesticate plants and animals since we are still meddling with nature?

From a religious POV, is it more wrong for man to hurt nature because it's God's creation?

[_John Larsen]

The birth rate declines in correlation to the rise in education levels. Rather than wage war, can we simply invest in education to lower the population?

[_asbestosman]

The birth rate declines in correlation to the rise in education levels. Rather than wage war, can we simply invest in education to lower the population?

I wouldn't want to wage war and I'm for investing in education. However, I wonder if it would actually be effective. I also question whether the reduction in population due to lower brith rates for the educated would actually be low enough to quit harming the planet. In fact it is my understanding that the USA's population only grows because of immigration. That being the case, we'd have to invest in education in Africa. However, this seems to be very difficult for whatever reason. Would it require war to educate the poor in Africa? I would hope not, but I'm not sure it'd be very straightforward either.

[_truth dancer]

Fun topic Asbestosman,

First, educate women and the birthrates will go down. No question about this.

Second, two words: oxygen revolution. Who knows what can or will come forth? There is certainly MUCH more ahead, humans will either have to figure out how to adapt or become extinct. I have a sense that humans as we know them won't be around for too much longer ... to survive we will either we will have to REALLY rethink our existence and find completely new ways to interact, (with each other and our planet), or we will move toward A.I. or something.

Next, I think solar energy is the best... we could easily provide energy for the entire world if we put our creativity and ingenuity to work! :-0

Finally, I believe we need to live in harmony with nature. Regardless of how wonderful and smart we think we are, we are nothing compared to the energy and essence of the universe. in my opinion, we are just barely scratching the surface of what is our reality and would do well to step back, embrace some humility and rethink our experience on the planet!

There you go... (smile)

~dancer~

[_Roger Morrison]

Me too for Real Education vs tribal indoctrination that perpetuates patriotism to economic capitalism/consumerism, rooting the current mess from the days of ignoble Abraham and his tribe...

Just read about Gore's speach to Baptists--he is one--re "The Green Bible". His attempt at biblical justification for his stance, all but destroyed his credibility in my opinion. Interesting reaction of the Southern Baptists: "We are more interested in saving souls, that the earth!" YIKES!!

Yeah, Real Education--sans religious errancy--is our only hope. Warm regards, Roger

[_bcspace]

What would maximize the number of man / spirit years left for the earth? Would cutting down the population to sustainable rates give the maximum total, or would letting the population continute to grow and pollute the earth do it?

The Lord has said there is plenty and to spare. Sure, cutting down the population under the current situation would help, but the best way in the scriptural context is to change the situation.

by the way, it seems that human caused 'global warming' has pretty well been established as a hoax.

It seems to me that the only way we can cut down on polluting the earth is by cutting down on the nubmer of people on it. But doing so may cut down on the total number of man years the world would see.

You mean the second comming would be postponed because not all who need to be born have been born in that case?

Furthermore, cutting down population carries its own disadvantages of probably requiring huge wars to enforce it as I doubt everyone will be compliant otherwise.

Limiting agency is always bad. Of course war is one way to reduce population....

When I think of alternative to oil, I'm not sure it's going to help things. Hydrogen cars will pollute the earth with water vapor which is a greenhouse gas stronger than carbon dioxide. Besides, the hydrogen fuel must come from somwhere.

Few people have thought this through, not thinking about where the energy comes from when you plug a car into a wall.

Hydroelectric power disrupts water ecosystems. Nuclear power has some hazardous waste (but hey, it's not CO2). Geothermal also disrupts life and nature. It seems that the only way to minimize this disruption is to not exist.

Nuclear fission seems the best and safest option for now. Nuclear fusion would be better as the engery per unit fuel is orders of magnitude greater and the half-life of the radioactive byproducts are on the order of days or weeks.

Furthermore I start questioning the wisdom of nature. Does nature really know best or does it not care at all? Is it really wrong to fight nature as when nature gives us smallpox or the black plague? At what point is disrupting nature for man's comfort fine even if some other creatures die? Is it always harmful to us when we disrupt nature? Is it wrong to use genetically modified foods since nature should know better than us? Is it wrong to domesticate plants and animals since we are still meddling with nature?

Not at all. But we must be prepared to live with any consequences.

From a religious POV, is it more wrong for man to hurt nature because it's God's creation?

We can care for and dress this world any way we wish.

[_asbestosman]

The Lord has said there is plenty and to spare.

Yeah, but he said that in the 19th century. Welcome to the 21st century. At one time, the Lord also said that He would be crucified, but since He has already been through that I'm not exactly waiting for it to happen again.

Actually, I think the earth might have enough for us humans, but it will take a source of cheap energy to support us. Nothing currently compares to oil in cheapness. Furthermore we'll have a more difficult time with pollution. China is having a heck of a time. They are actually ruining farmland with dumping chemical waste on farms. Finding a safe place to put waste is tricky and expensive as more people come. Eventually it must either effect our farmland and food supply, or it will become prohibitvely expensive.

by the way, it seems that human caused 'global warming' has pretty well been established as a hoax.

Not for me it isn't. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that it isn't a hoax. I simply do not have the background to discern who is right. I've certainly seen some misleading statements in the debate.

[Guest]

bcspace:

by the way, it seems that human caused 'global warming' has pretty well been established as a hoax.

I am beginning to think that bcspace is a rather unkind anti-mormon parody. First the bizarre mind-games on other threads about things being 'created' only after the earth had been full of life and activity for many millions of years, and now this little gem.

I particularly relish the introductory "by the way, it seems ...". True mastery of the genre here.

[_Roger Morrison]

SOLAR! Warm regards, Roger :-)