• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

An environmental topic...

FunkSlap89

FunkSlap89

Apr 26, 2005
1,368
1
#1
So, I've been thinking lately... and I realized how many people say "oh... cities and big busniesses are such an eye sore. people are destroying nature". This isn't a bash against these people, but that statement doesn't have anything to support it.

Its true that nuclear weapons and things of that nature could potentially destroy the earth, but complaining about cities disrupting nature is kind of ridiculous. Humans are a part of nature and we build cities out of the resources we have so that we can comfortably survive. Other creatures do this... beavers tear down trees and build beaver dams, which causes flooding and the destruction of acres of woodland. Are beaver dams destroying nature?

Its just something i've come to realize. People like to think that they're better than all the other things in nature, but really, everything we do is just part of nature anyway. Cities are an example of the deterioration of nature, but more of an evolution.

[/hippy-esque rant]
 
#2
Primates have used tools for thousands of years. So do we. A car is just a more advanced tool than early knives.

I do agree that we should find more environmentally friendly ways to develop our tools, but at the same time, we're part of nature.
 
#5
Nick man said:
True, beaver damns do change the landscape quite a bit, but how many other animals wipe every other animal from an area when they move in?
Click to expand...

Not every, cause in that case there wouldn't be as many crushed rabbits, squirrels, racoons, and such animals on the roads. :D

But I agree with the Funkslap, and Tplyons. we aren't the only ones destroying things. And we are trying to improve our comforts, and modes of transportation. I don't see much wrong in what we are doing. We rose to the top. End of story, IMO.
 
#6
I agree with FunkSlap89,I am not saying he will agree with me. In the USA we have only developed about 4.3% of total land area. I think we have made nowhere near an impact some would like to believe we have.

I do believe in doing it right, I am by no means the guy who pours used oil on the ground and says "That's where it came from" There has to be an environmentally friendly process to new and maintaining old development.
 
#7
The issue as I see it is that the vast majority of folks in the developed countries strive for mediocrity. You know - it's enough just to raise the kids and put of few bucks in the bank. We are huge resource consumers and are not looking very far ahead in general.

Complacency as a philosophy will be a disaster. We did rise to the top of the evolutionary chain, although I hope never to meet a cougar while Mtn Biking or a shark while swimming ... just 'cause we as a species are at the top doesn't mean that we've topped out. We know more about the environment and our impact on it and about long term sustainability. It's time for us to make wiser choices in how we plan the future or the future is going to be planned for us...
 
#8
Nick man said:
True, beaver damns do change the landscape quite a bit, but how many other animals wipe every other animal from an area when they move in?
Click to expand...

If I find one, I'll make sure to kill it.

You know, we could hold nature by the hand for centuries and guess what it would do? Not give a damn. Nature is nature. It just happens. We would die of disease, bear attacks, weather, etc.

And even if nature was kind to us, an asteroid would still say "hur hur, watch me totally ram into this planet, dudes!" and destroy everything anyway. There's no point in thinking too much about it.
 
#9
Earthquakes/famine/flood/disease, it's all just mother nature brushing dandruff off her shoulder.

We've made some BAD choices as a species regarding our energy supplies, be it the exploitation of whatever resource; human, mineral, vegetable etc, but overall we haven't blown up the place yet and we've had the power to do so easily for over half a century. Entire empires rose and fell within that span dating back to the dawn of recorded history, yet so far we have managed to not wipe each other off the planet by pollution or explosives.


I'm on the fence currently as to how long we can keep this up, but I'm also not afraid to say "so far so good"......considering... ;)
 
#11
labgnat said:
animals do things naturely, people not so much, i'm sure the landscape was much more beautifuls when there were no homosapiens. but i enjoy living comfortable so i'm not gonna complain about it too much
Click to expand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I, for one, think New York City is beautiful in its own way, as well as many other architectural marvels, like the Eiffel Tower, or Versailles.
 
#12
i think we need to respect the earth. i undertand that we are going to build cities and cars and keep getting more advanced. but along with that advancement should come cleaner emissions, lower pollution, better recycling techniques, and better protection and understanding of wildlife and their habitat.
 
#13
This has been a good discussion thus far... basically what i was trying to say in the beginning was that we are part of nature and what we do IS nature, so humas creating pollution is just another part of nature. If this will destroy the earth in the next few milleniums, then that was how the earth was destined to end, I guess...
 
#16
Honestly, I don't believe that "pollution" exists. Yes, there is such a thing as gasoline in cars being burned, producing carbon di/monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, unvaporized hydrocarbons, water, etc... but so what? On the molecular level, we're simply turning all of the liquid fossil fuels into water and gasses (oversimplification). While one can make the argument that our air is cleaner and happier with the fossil fuels in the ground, there is still nothing unnatural about digging them up. They exist in nature, therefore they are natural.

The same applies to nuclear energy, which is the most natural of all. Uranium rich earth is dug up and the happy uranium that's extracted is thrown into the reactor. Uranium exists and decays in nature, so the above process is simply a means to quicken the reaction and harness the energy. In some ways, nuclear power plants are good for the environment: we remove the uranium from the ground, decay it to a lower energy state and put it somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

Even mercury and lead don't bother me much. After all, we're not creating more mercury and lead, we're just playing with what already exists. As long as we maintain safe levels of those (and other chemicals) in our air, food, drinking water etc. I don't see any problem with using them.

The only thing I can think of that is absolutely unnatural would be nuclear fusion. Just about everything else filed under the category of pollution is a rearrangement of atoms that could happen in nature.
 
#17
Two things extremist tree huggers will never tell you or admit.

1. There are actually more trees now in the entire U.S. than when first settled. When loggers cut some down they plant more.

2. Global warming is not caused by cars and polutants. The earth has seasons/cycles that last thousands of years or more. Just like we have summer/winter/spring and fall in one year. The earth has seasons as a whole, such as the ice age.

Sure the air is very harsh in large cities, but do you really think that little amount of polutant is enough to change the whole planets evironment. A geologist will tell you that the atmosphere is more a result of what goes on underneath the earths crust than what goes on on top of it. Most of the atmosphere we have is from gasses released from the planet.
 
#18
ric1312 said:
Two things extremist tree huggers will never tell you or admit.

1. There are actually more trees now in the entire U.S. than when first settled. When loggers cut some down they plant more.

2. Global warming is not caused by cars and polutants. The earth has seasons/cycles that last thousands of years or more. Just like we have summer/winter/spring and fall in one year. The earth has seasons as a whole, such as the ice age.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, there are more trees. But there's also more people. A lot more. They are needed, and for the population of the U.S. vs the amount of trees, it is no where near what it was when the country was founded.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
More Carbon dioxide produced= more trees needed.

2. Yes, it is a cycle. Warm, cold, warm, cold...until the end of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
And while I'm sure the credibility of wikipedia will be questioned, this graph shows that...hey...the warm is warmer than usual. So...yeah.

I guess it doesn't matter if global warming happens or not...I'm in Canada...if it did, longer growing seasons for us...

I believe that global warming is occurring...of course, I was also the guy who thought SARS would kill us all...I'm still waiting. I bough 2000 of those stupid little doctor masks...if anyone ever needs one...
 
#20
peter griffin said:
I agree with FunkSlap89,I am not saying he will agree with me. In the USA we have only developed about 4.3% of total land area. I think we have made nowhere near an impact some would like to believe we have.

I do believe in doing it right, I am by no means the guy who pours used oil on the ground and says "That's where it came from" There has to be an environmentally friendly process to new and maintaining old development.
Click to expand...

The 4.3% developed land is just that "developed land". There's still part of the environment that being destroyed that is undevloped. Acid rain is slowly destorying the "undeveloped" land. Just because there's no urbanization in the area, doesnt mean that the ecosystem is not effected by the advancements of the human kind.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back