How Green Are You?

[8]

Getting cleaning up?

Spreak Engrish please

I ate Chinese for lunch

 

[Deleted member 848]

Well isn't that quite the goalpost to set. You want God's garden of eden or what? Prove they're the dirtiest...

A rather hilarious back-track. There's loads of petroleum waste, petroleum products (entire islands of grocery bags, water bottles, etc.), heavy metals, and all sorts of biohazardous waste that is dumped into the oceans daily. Any marine biologist would cry laughing at your rather-preposterous statements in this thread. The effects are cumulative. The oceans have never been more dirty/polluted as they are now, on a worldwide basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 848]

Siro is right. Places start getting cleaning up after they develop. It's the development process that is the biggest problem. But, Economics > Mother Earth. I don't want to stunt a poor countries development.

It's not that monolithic. Economic development in some places is creating environmental refugees in other places. Stunting a nations economy vs. saving 3/4 of Bangladesh from flooding


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Siro]

Fair enough, I suppose, but if you want to get hyper-philosophical as you tend to then security is also a luxury of being rich. You're really only arguing the relativity of what is rich.

Humanity, life, whatever you want to define it starts from a simple stage of survival and progresses upwards. Environmentalism is pretty damn high on the pyramid of necessity. It also happens to be symbiotic so rich developed vs poor developed doesn't make much of a difference. Having the luxury of maintaining a clean environment as a society is, at some point on the individual level, self beneficial to society at large. That's basically the reason we ended up cleaning up the trash we laid waste for about 50 years.

It is an important distinction. To call it a luxury of the rich means it is frivolous. That's not the case. It's a lot like animal rights. Beside basic standards of humane treatments that exist in almost all cultures, the people living in developed countries care a lot more about the issue. My uncle's family is very rich, yet, not a single one of them is interested in environmentalism or even knows much about it. Here in the US, the middle class, and even less affluent people (hippies!), are conscious of their environmental impact. My uncle's family is worth a whole town worth of middle class people. What I'm saying is, environmentalism comes from the higher level of awareness that exist in developed countries at a cultural level. As opposed to issues rich people care about, like the estate tax.

I kind of agree with you, but the reason we started cleaning up the environment is because a culture of environmental awareness developed and propagated. Whether it mostly happens on the individual or collective levels is irrelevant. It is important and it should be encouraged on all levels. It may not be a top priority, but it is a positive value of foster, even if it costs a society a little bit on the economic end. The discussion should be about the relative worth of each policy (or action in general) whether economically, politically, environmentally, etc. There is no need to dismiss the importance of taking care of our environment as the trivial pursuit of the rich.

 

[8]

There is a more than a bit of money guilt trying to pay back the sins of our grandfathers.

Not a good way to look at it imo. I am grateful to be living in such a developed nation - with all these mind-blowing opportunities available to me. I think people are just recognizing the environment as something to preserve and treasure, and the developed state of the country and many of our lives allows us to focus on this more than previous people. That leads to more information about all this ish as well. I'd imagine very few people are thinking of it as an exorcism of sorts.

 

[Siro]

Not a good way to look at it imo. I am grateful to be living in such a developed nation - with all these mind-blowing opportunities available to me. I think people are just recognizing the environment as something to preserve and treasure, and the developed state of the country and many of our lives allows us to focus on this more than previous people. That leads to more information about all this ish as well. I'd imagine very few people are thinking of it as an exorcism of sorts.

You get it. Also I love you.

 

[franklin]

It is an important distinction. To call it a luxury of the rich means it is frivolous. That's not the case. It's a lot like animal rights. Beside basic standards of humane treatments that exist in almost all cultures, the people living in developed countries care a lot more about the issue. My uncle's family is very rich, yet, not a single one of them is interested in environmentalism or even knows much about it. Here in the US, the middle class, and even less affluent people (hippies!), are conscious of their environmental impact. My uncle's family is worth a whole town worth of middle class people. What I'm saying is, environmentalism comes from the higher level of awareness that exist in developed countries at a cultural level. As opposed to issues rich people care about, like the estate tax.

I kind of agree with you, but the reason we started cleaning up the environment is because a culture of environmental awareness developed and propagated. Whether it mostly happens on the individual or collective levels is irrelevant. It is important and it should be encouraged on all levels. It may not be a top priority, but it is a positive value of foster, even if it costs a society a little bit on the economic end. The discussion should be about the relative worth of each policy (or action in general) whether economically, politically, environmentally, etc. There is no need to dismiss the importance of taking care of our environment as the trivial pursuit of the rich.

Not a good way to look at it imo. I am grateful to be living in such a developed nation - with all these mind-blowing opportunities available to me. I think people are just recognizing the environment as something to preserve and treasure, and the developed state of the country and many of our lives allows us to focus on this more than previous people. That leads to more information about all this ish as well. I'd imagine very few people are thinking of it as an exorcism of sorts.

You're both downplaying or ignoring the reality of it based on your higher ideals.

Siro, you're wrong about why we cleaned up our act. Think about how people lived just 70-80 years ago let alone 30-40. We've come a long way in such a short period of time that it's hard for us to relate to the true struggles of life. We started cleaning up only after it either affected us or we could afford to.

 

[franklin]

A rather hilarious back-track. There's loads of petroleum waste, petroleum products (entire islands of grocery bags, water bottles, etc.), heavy metals, and all sorts of biohazardous waste that is dumped into the oceans daily. Any marine biologist would cry laughing at your rather-preposterous statements in this thread. The effects are cumulative. The oceans have never been more dirty/polluted as they are now, on a worldwide basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You''re being dramatic & overtly bias. Why do you think the work of those marine biologists hasn't produces a gram of results?

I also don't see why you're narrowing it down to the oceans only other than to score points. Environment is local, geographic and global.

 

[Siro]

You're both downplaying or ignoring the reality of it based on your higher ideals.

Siro, you're wrong about why we cleaned up our act. Think about how people lived just 70-80 years ago let alone 30-40. We've come a long way in such a short period of time that it's hard for us to relate to the true struggles of life. We started cleaning up only after it either affected us or we could afford to.

That's what I am saying. Environmentalism was born organically out of development. Much like all the positive values that the comfort of development allowed for, environmental awareness should be encouraged and used in the evaluation of the payoff of any action, along with older concerns like economics.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Very

 

[franklin]

That's what I am saying. Environmentalism was born organically out of development. Much like all the positive values that the comfort of development allowed for, environmental awareness should be encouraged and used in the evaluation of the payoff of any action, along with older concerns like economics.

I don't think we'd disagree too much on the desired outcome. My issue is in how we're trying to get there. I'm no fan of awareness campaigning and the negative feedback loop that comes from it. I've seen more than enough institutional dynamics in my line of work. Enough is never enough for that crowd and it's highly counterproductive.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You''re being dramatic & overtly bias. Why do you think the work of those marine biologists hasn't produces a gram of results?

I also don't see why you're narrowing it down to the oceans only other than to score points. Environment is local, geographic and global.

Haha bro, keep spinning. You said the world is the cleanest it's ever been, and you dared me to prove you wrong. And I did. You're the dramatic one. Scientists of multiple disciplines would laugh at your posts. Your mischaracterization of marine biology "producing zero results" is as moronic as your other posts in this thread.

And why do you have a problem with me not narrowing it down? You asked to name any example, and I did. Unfortunately, the irony is that I can narrow it WAY the **** down.

You want local? Ft. Chipewyan. Elevated rare cancer rates due to oil sands.

You want non-aquatic? Elevated cancer rates in the Middle East due to radioactive decay from explosives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk