Anyone here a greenie?

we aren't buildings... what can we do without oxygen? try and breath through regulators with simulated oxygen for the rest of time?

 

Actually humans are very not-adaptable to different enviornments. The reason that we can spread across to all corners of the planet is because we "change" the enviornment around us to suit what we are used to. Urbanization is a good example. Even in the primitive ages, humans constructed huts or live in caves that sheltered against harsh weather. If we keep destroying ecosystems, the Earth itself would go into some kind of turmoil. Like the climate change where last year in Melborune, Australia, there were snow in the middle of summer. Now that's a bit strange. Not to mention the lost of food stocks.

 

Ok yeah...true that. Good point. I'm in no way endorsing ruining the world we live in...all I'm saying is that as the only (?) sentient organism on the planet, we have the ability to see ways of coping with particular kinds of scenarios. Ice-ages in the past, for example, led to the rise of mankind as we were able to change our way of living (by putting on more clothes, building huts, fire etc). But yeah, I do recognise the importance of being careful with the environment. Without other life to support us, we'd be screwed. All I was saying is that we're somewhat more adaptable than other species, just not necessarily biologically, more in a cultural / societal sense. Hope that made sense

 

how do you want to fit 6-9 billion people (9 billion in 50 years at current rate) in the sub equator areas of the world? like 5/8 of the world's mass is above the equator

 

...

how does russia get along?

...and how are we going to lose all of that oxygen?

half of the world population is in asia and india (or those and nearby areas). i think we could manage. and according to you, we'll be so screwed that there will be less people.

 

Well yes, it is true that it's very difficult to lose all of Earth's oxygen (1/5 of Earth's atmosphere), BUT, you need to remember that the concentration of oxygen on this planet need to remain stable. Or else many organisms that does not have features or adaptations to the decreasing [O2] will not survive very well. As many hectares of forest we cut down, we need to replace them somewhere, so we won't have ever rapid growing of concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

There's actually not enough fresh water supply to supply the entire Earth's population. Recycling water and desalination are what we'll soon all be relying on.

 

wait...what? there's not enough water for us all? so what have we been doing?

i thought trees loved Co2?

 

[/quote]

Actually humans are very not-adaptable to different enviornments. The reason that we can spread across to all corners of the planet is because we "change" the enviornment around us to suit what we are used to. Urbanization is a good example. Even in the primitive ages, humans constructed huts or live in caves that sheltered against harsh weather. If we keep destroying ecosystems, the Earth itself would go into some kind of turmoil. Like the climate change where last year in Melborune, Australia, there were snow in the middle of summer. Now that's a bit strange. Not to mention the lost of food stocks.
[/quote]
Umm hate to bust your bubble but that is what adaptability is. In the ancient world humans would take what the environment could give them and use it to the best of their advantage therefore making life easier for them adapting to their enviorment and thriving. Differing skin colors is an adaptation albeit a minor one as far as genetic coding is concerned. It helps people who are father away from the equator absorb more vitamin d from the sun because theirs not as much, but for people who are in more sub-tropical regions they need the darker color to block out more of the suns harmful rays. They get enough vitamin d because their is more sun coming at them.

 

....he said nothing about humans being completely unadaptable, he just said we suck at it. skin and size changes are pretty much all we can manage to change in ourselves. everything else is changing the surroundings.

 

okay here's a tip:

stop smoking weeds! save the plants! lol.

okay, here's my real tip:

high polluting industries should be banned from operating. this is just one of major contributors of pollution. the "NO LITTERING" thing is kinda old, but it still works. imagine all the worlds litter gathered in one place. it will be as big as a whole country!

i think there is only less than 1% of all the waters in the world that is fresh water. and yeah desalination will be great coz salt water is real abundant.

can i ask a question. how will fusion power affect the environment once its discovered a source of electricity?

 

OK this is an old thread, but I felt like I need to comment here again.

hillzagold, by understanding the science behind this issue, you'll realize that "trees love CO2" is not very correct. Yes trees need CO2 to do photosynthesis, in this process they make O2 and sugar for themselves, as well as releasing O2 into the atmosphere. Trees need O2 to respire to make energy for themselves, and all other respiring organism on this planet need those O2 to survive, trees are one of them.

Also, the changing concentration of CO2 and O2 will have an enormous impact on planet. A high [CO2] will decrease the pH of ocean and other bodies of water, some organisms will not be able to tolerate this changing pH. At the same time, by combusting fossil fuel (conventional power plants, vehicle engines, etc) releases other polluting gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides into the atmosphere, and it's directly harmful to human as well as causing indirect harm to lots and lots of other things on this planet.

OK, enough about the problems, now onto the solutions.....

What is the real solution here? Dramatically decrease the human population? Reverse the industrial revolution and go back to live in the middle ages? These solutions are very effective but totally not practical.

So far the most viable option is to switch to renewables on a large scale. In the old days, renewables are expensive compare to fossil fuel. But nowdays, fossil fuel are diminishing quickly, their prices are skyrocketing as demand rapidly overtakes supply. So now renewables are comparatively cheap.

 

the most viable option to me seams a one-child per family law

 

Ya, look at China, that law seems to be working pretty well for them :

 

The One Child Policy is definitely needed in China. It's a very good idea for them to implement it. There aren't enough resources to support such a huge population. However, it is also creating certain problems. Such as the imbalanced male to female ratio. As well as the aging population (like the 4 - 2 - 1 problem in a family).

Now looking at the world as a whole. I think a better idea is to have a system where you need to obtain a "license" to have children, just like how you need a license to drive. The government department will assess the suitability of a family to have children, and those who aren't capable of raising kids should not have them. I mean, parenting is one of the most difficult and challenging job in the world. The current trend we are seeing is that rich couples would have little or no children because they are too occupied in their occupation. While poorer couples have multiple children without the financial ability to support them. This should be somehow changed.

 

However, I could easily see that a lot of people would have children in secret if the license rule was in place. Just like how people have children outside of marrages. This rule sounds good on paper, but I don't see human nature changing for a single rule that would be extremely hard to enforce. I could see this having the same effect probation had; people would begin to break the laws because it would be seen as cool and because people don't like having laws keeping them away from what they want.

Also, even with the one child law in China, there are still those families that try to hide their children so they can have more than one without the government stepping in and taking one child away.

 

yes, but atleast the number will reduce a little

 

Saving water and all is great, taking onl y a few shower I applauded, low flow toilets too, but how about those big ass green fields! Why do we need to use inefficientl sprinklers to water them, we should we water them at all. The world doesn't all have to look like California!
[img width=670 height=452]http://www.highrock.com/WashingtonDC/whitehouse_b.jpg[/img]

And those giant fountains? Why?!?!!!
[img width=670 height=446]http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-4/tunis-fountain-night.jpg[/img]
That it so much water!!!
That could keep someone hydrated for years!

yes...i am a greenie. I apologize for the rant, it had to be done....

As for the only child spheal, no offense to only children, but I think having a sibling is an overall helpful experience. it teaches you go share, play well with others, and that there are others out there besides you.

 

I think being required to have a license to have kids is just a bad idea. To me it seems like an encroachment on private lives of people, telling people that "you can do this but you can't do this, you have to ask us if you want to do this and we'll have to decide for you because we don't think you're capable enough to handle this kind of situation" and to me, I think that's just wrong. Reproduction is a natural instinct of ours and governments shouldn't be allowed to put a limit on something that by definition living organisms. For countries like China that have huge populations I understand how the one child law would help, and I think that's a good thing. But forcing people to get a license before they have kids is going too far and it'll only create more problems. Before you know it we'll be worshiping a hooded and masked man known as Big Brother.

 

@chax

i know how you feel, they use water cannons when we scholars go on a strike

 

Well, I bike every day, I donate money to green peace each month, and recycle my garbage as good as I can. I stopped smoking 3 years ago, and never litter the ground, and I never buy bottel water.. That's just baby steps, but steps nontheless..