Global warming wipes island off Sunderbans map

GauhatiBoy · Nov 25th, 2007, 06:54

The answer to that is

Humans have much much more influence on the planet since we have the ability to burn coal, make ships, fish the oceans, tap oil and burn it, cut down old forests. . . We have the ability to make way more damage than any other species. And we need to be conscious of that.

machadinha · Nov 25th, 2007, 07:05

Maybe the question is if there's any pressing reason why we should survive.

I'm not at all so sure.

About all that global warming yes-or-no, I imagine (if they're still there) people being much impressed 500 years from now with our deliberations of whether it was man-inflicted or a natural phenomenon. It seems to be rather a moot point, the thing is that either way it's happening, and our lifestyle demonstrably doesn't seem to have a positive effect on it. Yes, earth has gone through major climate shifts before. Most of the species that were there didn't live to tell the tale. What the answer is I don't know,* but triumphantly being able to exclaim (when there's no one left to exclaim it) that "Look! It wasn't the industry and mass consumption!" surely won't be one of them.

I agree with some of the above btw, this stuff doesn't get measured in whether you or I have had a couple of wet summers or warm winters or vice versa, it goes way beyond that and doesn't get measured in one or even several human lifespans. I was watching some documentary the other day on the way the earth revolves in an uneven sphere (expanding and contracting) related to the sun, and we are now entering a period of cooling off (i.e., greater distance). This takes centuries if not millennia (centuries actually if I recall, it wasn't that apocalyptic). But long enough for a species like us humans to have a very hard time to survive, if not flat-out dying out.

Again, if that is a problem on a wider universal plan is open to debate. Maybe no one will miss us.

* Well, obviously reducing emissions and looking into cleaner sources of energy seems one rational path.

snowcrab · Nov 25th, 2007, 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by machadinha

Maybe the question is if there's any pressing reason why we should survive.

I'm not at all so sure.

Reason doesn't seem to have as much to do with the way we do things as we would like to think. That is what is frustrating.

machadinha · Nov 25th, 2007, 07:55

Hm? Yes, I agree.

Not overly developed apes still, aren't we. That consciousness that sets us off from the rest doesn't seem to set us off so greatly, in any case.

Pity. I imagine it might have been a handy tool.

snowcrab · Nov 25th, 2007, 17:32

One of the other conditions that keeps species from doing the crash and burn thing is competition. We have not had any of that except for the occasional virus for a long time.

CliveG · Nov 25th, 2007, 17:41

We should have the ability to change things on a global scale if we really want to. On a smaller scale in the 1950's London in particular suffered severely from smog that reduced visibility to virtually nil and killed thousands. The Clean Air Act solved that problem and we have done the same to our rivers - but it took the will of the people and a lot of money to achieve even these relatively small changes for the better.

machadinha · Nov 25th, 2007, 23:57

I agree Clive. Nihilism and doom & damnation aside, I think there are obvious rational steps to take, and they've already been clearly outlined, and are otherwise being studied and developed as we speak. But it's like poverty and starvation: The problem is not that there's too little money or food to go around.

snowcrab · Nov 26th, 2007, 00:36

I'm working on a family history at the moment. Our family like everyone else's on the Prairie's was severely impacted by the massive depression of the thirties that followed four years of drought in which all the topsoil in the fields blew into the sky.

That was caused by poor farming practices. The government after that made a point of getting to individual farm families and teaching them how to cultivate fields and grow windbreaks so that this doesn't happen again. We have had drought years since but not like that ever again. But that did take spending the money to get out there and deal with individuals and convince them that it was in their own best interests to get with the plan.

Is there any incentive beyond common good to offer large polluting industries, because I don't think they care about common good.

I'm sure lots of people are more than willing to switch to florescent from incandescent light bulbs and consumers put up no great resistance to cleaning up their refrigerators. But can they really say no to electricity that is created in coal burning plants? Do without lights? Can they say no to heating their houses during the winter by burning fossil fuels? Do without heat?

Who is going to make the plants install scubbers if they say they are not making enough money to do this.

edwardseco · Nov 26th, 2007, 01:35

http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=book s&qid=1196021069&sr=1-1

Different take, good speaker..

snowcrab · Nov 26th, 2007, 02:08

I just get discouraged about human nature. If people can't see the impact as immediate and personal there doesn't seem to be much incentive for change. Melting glaciers are just too subtle. And dissapearing islands too minor. We seem to need a lot more dramatic manifestation to motivate people. The dust bowl got to people, it was right in their face. But will there still be time to make useful changes in the way we do things when environmental catastrophe is right in our face? This isn't a small local system.

I suspect the author you recommend may be right,a full response will cost less in the long run than a half measures, that's usually the way things work.

Nov 25th, 2007, 07:05	#137
machadinha Not Your Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: yörp Posts: 10,612	Maybe the question is if there's any pressing reason why we should survive. I'm not at all so sure. About all that global warming yes-or-no, I imagine (if they're still there) people being much impressed 500 years from now with our deliberations of whether it was man-inflicted or a natural phenomenon. It seems to be rather a moot point, the thing is that either way it's happening, and our lifestyle demonstrably doesn't seem to have a positive effect on it. Yes, earth has gone through major climate shifts before. Most of the species that were there didn't live to tell the tale. What the answer is I don't know,* but triumphantly being able to exclaim (when there's no one left to exclaim it) that "Look! It wasn't the industry and mass consumption!" surely won't be one of them. I agree with some of the above btw, this stuff doesn't get measured in whether you or I have had a couple of wet summers or warm winters or vice versa, it goes way beyond that and doesn't get measured in one or even several human lifespans. I was watching some documentary the other day on the way the earth revolves in an uneven sphere (expanding and contracting) related to the sun, and we are now entering a period of cooling off (i.e., greater distance). This takes centuries if not millennia (centuries actually if I recall, it wasn't that apocalyptic). But long enough for a species like us humans to have a very hard time to survive, if not flat-out dying out. Again, if that is a problem on a wider universal plan is open to debate. Maybe no one will miss us. * Well, obviously reducing emissions and looking into cleaner sources of energy seems one rational path. __________________ Reading tips, all picked up at IndiaMike : INDAX's A Comprehensive Guide To India / Dinoj Surendran's Desi Humor / ITHVC on Culture Shock & Travel Health / JetLag Travel Guides For the Undiscerning Traveller / India Travel Links

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global warming shows up at Amarnath Yatra	arunchs	Chai and Chat	1	Jun 20th, 2006 12:20
Climate warming!??	cliff clavin	Chai and Chat	6	Jan 10th, 2006 10:16
Bangladesh: Boat service Hatiya Island - Sandwip Island - Chittagong.....	teeratiti	Crossing the Border	5	Sep 6th, 2005 17:17
sunderbans????	ricgabriel	West Bengal	9	Sep 6th, 2005 14:35

Nov 25th, 2007, 06:54	#136
GauhatiBoy Not sure where I'm from Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Oregon USA Posts: 281	The answer to that is Humans have much much more influence on the planet since we have the ability to burn coal, make ships, fish the oceans, tap oil and burn it, cut down old forests. . . We have the ability to make way more damage than any other species. And we need to be conscious of that.

Nov 25th, 2007, 07:55	#139
machadinha Not Your Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: yörp Posts: 10,612	Hm? Yes, I agree. Not overly developed apes still, aren't we. That consciousness that sets us off from the rest doesn't seem to set us off so greatly, in any case. Pity. I imagine it might have been a handy tool.

Nov 25th, 2007, 17:32	#140
snowcrab Maha Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alberta, Can Posts: 1,049	One of the other conditions that keeps species from doing the crash and burn thing is competition. We have not had any of that except for the occasional virus for a long time.

Nov 25th, 2007, 17:41	#141
CliveG Maha Guru Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: PORTSMOUTH U.K. Posts: 678	We should have the ability to change things on a global scale if we really want to. On a smaller scale in the 1950's London in particular suffered severely from smog that reduced visibility to virtually nil and killed thousands. The Clean Air Act solved that problem and we have done the same to our rivers - but it took the will of the people and a lot of money to achieve even these relatively small changes for the better.

Nov 25th, 2007, 23:57	#142
machadinha Not Your Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: yörp Posts: 10,612	I agree Clive. Nihilism and doom & damnation aside, I think there are obvious rational steps to take, and they've already been clearly outlined, and are otherwise being studied and developed as we speak. But it's like poverty and starvation: The problem is not that there's too little money or food to go around.

Nov 26th, 2007, 00:36	#143
snowcrab Maha Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alberta, Can Posts: 1,049	I'm working on a family history at the moment. Our family like everyone else's on the Prairie's was severely impacted by the massive depression of the thirties that followed four years of drought in which all the topsoil in the fields blew into the sky. That was caused by poor farming practices. The government after that made a point of getting to individual farm families and teaching them how to cultivate fields and grow windbreaks so that this doesn't happen again. We have had drought years since but not like that ever again. But that did take spending the money to get out there and deal with individuals and convince them that it was in their own best interests to get with the plan. Is there any incentive beyond common good to offer large polluting industries, because I don't think they care about common good. I'm sure lots of people are more than willing to switch to florescent from incandescent light bulbs and consumers put up no great resistance to cleaning up their refrigerators. But can they really say no to electricity that is created in coal burning plants? Do without lights? Can they say no to heating their houses during the winter by burning fossil fuels? Do without heat? Who is going to make the plants install scubbers if they say they are not making enough money to do this.

Nov 26th, 2007, 01:35	#144
edwardseco Maha Guru Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Land that shakes and bakes. Posts: 3,945	http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=book s&qid=1196021069&sr=1-1 Different take, good speaker..

Nov 26th, 2007, 02:08	#145
snowcrab Maha Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alberta, Can Posts: 1,049	I just get discouraged about human nature. If people can't see the impact as immediate and personal there doesn't seem to be much incentive for change. Melting glaciers are just too subtle. And dissapearing islands too minor. We seem to need a lot more dramatic manifestation to motivate people. The dust bowl got to people, it was right in their face. But will there still be time to make useful changes in the way we do things when environmental catastrophe is right in our face? This isn't a small local system. I suspect the author you recommend may be right,a full response will cost less in the long run than a half measures, that's usually the way things work.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password