• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I'm Surveying ATOT For A School Project

the concept of global warming being a creation of humans as perpetuated by the media is not real. (in my opinion.) I do believe in climate change, but this is not perpetuated by humans.

no, the environment does not have an intrinsic value beyond its usefulness to humans. (all other animals will feel the same way. the environment exists to serve whoever is top dog of the environment. we are all following evolution, and if we say the environment has an intrinsic value, it is because it gives us some satisfaction (some positive benifit) out of knowing that it is "safe".)
 
This is going to be a flame fest I think, but here goes.

I think Al Gore and his alarmist bullshit of global warming has political goals. I believe the media and many other politicians have taken it hook line and sinker. Yes, I've seen the so-called experts opinions, but there are other experts who also believe it is not true. I have a very hard time believing that IF there is global warming, that it is not cyclical in nature. I remember 20 years ago they were predicting a new ice age and all the hysteria associated with it.

Does the environment have intrinsic value??? Duh! Absolutely, it is essential to any living thing on the earth.

I love the outdoors and grew up in the country and I strongly believe that I have a greater appreciation for the outdoors than the average person. I love few things more than a long quiet walk in the woods by myself and would hate to see it go away. When I was about 13 years old or so, all the area around me was bought up by a developer and it was made into tract housing and it made me sick to see all those trees torn down for miles around.
 
Originally posted by: Polish3d

Thanks for any input! 🙂
Click to expand...

be careful if you are only using AT as the survey group for your project. The people on AT are not a represenative sample of the population as a whole and this could affect your grade.
 
Global warming: Real, yes. Caused by humans? Maybe. It's in everyone's interest to reduce pollution though. Humans also have dug up loads of carbon dioxide that nature "fixed" long ago, and CO2 is opaque to infrared radiation. Is it enough? Don't know. But if we reduce the pollution that is definitely toxic, we'll also reduce CO2 levels as a side effect.


Does the environment have value beyond its usefulness to us? The other life forms present in the Universe (obviously including those on Earth) would likely say so.

 
I don't think the common conception of global warming is true at all. The earth's climate is changing all the time and although humans probably aren't helping, I don't think we're causing all of it. There are a lot of things affecting the climate that aren't taken into account by most people (the sun, for one).

Edit: Intrinsic value in the environment? Sure. Nature is a beautiful thing. And it's really not in our best interest to destroy it - most of our medicines and the basic ingredients for many of our products come from nature. There are still many things we haven't discovered.
 
Before I say anything, Deep Ecology is Wrong. Ecofeminism is wrong, any philosophy that ascribes "being" or "value" is wrong.

I believe Global Warming IS real, but want hard core evidence that humans are causing it. Earth goes through drastic climate changes all the time.

There is no intrinsic value in the environment. The environment is only there as something to let life grow, there is no "value" to it, much like there is no real "value" to a car. Its just something that we believe exists, but it doesn't. Its like Hidgeggar's (Can't spell his name for the love of life) concept of "being". Something that it just made up to try and base a philosophy off of.
 
Global warming, very very gradual warming, is a trend that started before humans started emitting C02, and etc gases, but there is no denying that those gases would increase the rate of that warming. At the same time, to hell with the environment, survival of the fittest, plants and other animals can suck it. We all know, after the age of humans will end with the beginning of the age of microbes, and then we'll be sucking it. It's how the world works, and there is no sense in preserving other animals, although there is something to be said about keeping photosynthesizing plants around, we need O2!
 
Originally posted by: videogames101
Global warming, very very gradual warming, is a trend that started before humans started emitting C02, and etc gases, but there is no denying that those gases would increase the rate of that warming. At the same time, to hell with the environment, survival of the fittest, plants and other animals can suck it. We all know, after the age of humans will end with the beginning of the age of microbes, and then we'll be sucking it. It's how the world works, and there is no sense in preserving other animals, although there is something to be said about keeping photosynthesizing plants around, we need O2!
Click to expand...

This man speaks the truth for the most part.

Global climate change is real, in some cases a completely natural event based on how the world works, but we may or may not be providing a speed increase with CO2 emissions. And if it is not because of human CO2 emissions, then there is nothing we can do, other than if it is a drastic change, hope we can adapt/evolve to survive a changed world. We've never been around for a major event, so we cannot say how we will be effected. Maybe humans will be drastically cut down in numbers, which is far from a bad thing, sorry to say. Sure, that's a loss of human life in a large percentage, but in reality... does it matter? Sure it may be loved ones, but for the best to survive is only beneficial for a species. That means they are more fit, possibly stronger, or possibly just adapted in some way for a different environment. Regardless, it'll be better for the human population to be smaller for a variety of reasons. Less disease transmission, better living conditions around the world, etc etc. That's life. No animals of our size has EVER had as large of a population as we do, and with the way we manipulate the environment, it is obviously disastrous.

And with the environment, yes it has an intrinsic value, but only to those who can both live with it AND make the best use of it. If we destroy the environment, well... what good does that do us? That means we have to live in it, so it has a value to be maintained properly. HOWEVER, that is not to say we should not go around and make sure we don't kill animals in the process. We became dominant for a reason, our ancestors fought and survived against many predators, life wasn't handed to us on a silver platter. It may seem that way now because we've discovered ways to make use of education and civilization, and in the process develop ways to solve various problems we discovered, be it health concerns, travel, mass communication, etc etc. Through the ability to educate, we can pass on the knowledge of the past, and build upon it. This is completely evident in the fact that at one point, we began discovering the same things that many before us may have discovered or thought about prior, but the loss of a vast quantity of knowledge during the various fires and destruction of the library in Alexandria proved we could not have known. It is theorized that those before that time had thought about certain principals and other things, and through research in other materials from noted mathematicians, philosophers, and whoever, we can deduce they most likely had written material that could have been plenty useful but had been destroyed.
But I digress. To get on to my point: life is a struggle, or at least it was, and normally is. We have no reason to make friends with every animal out there. What does that get us? Most of these animals we have fighting to preserve, have no value to humans other than scenic beauty. Yes, they help control populations of other animals, so it can all have an effect somewhere else, but the point is, this is our world, because we claim it. We claim to be the most intelligent life form on this planet, and the most important. So, why don't we claim the world itself as ours to do with what we please? Hippies and in general environmentalists are blocking a LOT of forward progress simply because it has an effect on the environment and the populations of various animals. So what? If it will help us, we should do it. We'll learn how to deal with any problems in the future, or else we'll fail. That's what life is. Life is not about making peace with every species out there, or else that alone may spell out doom. What if our population were for some reason to diminish to the point of being so small that other large mammals overshadow us in numbers? What happens then? What if the other species can adapt to that new world and overcome us or wipe out us prior to us recouping our losses? Yes that is a very drastic, and extremely unlikely scenario, but it is the essential truth: species don't get to the top by become friends with and protecting all other species. Unless of course that species also develops into an intelligent creature that is a potential competitor, then it could be fitting to either befriend them, or destroy them and protect our own future. Life is a bitch for all species, and the point of life for a species is to either be the best at what you do, or perish as some other species overshadows you. Life itself is a gamble, and the end point is to evolve and eventually produce the best possible creature for a given environment.
An end goal, as cheesy as it may sound for some, is to spread our species beyond the home planet. Explore space, find other planets, and maybe find other species of a similar level to us. And guess what might happen then? If there is another species out there like us, then start praying your asses if you see fit (I sure as hell won't), that they won't be as dumb as us in tribal behavior - i.e. hell bent on fighting those that aren't like them. And what... the hippies will probably preach that we should make friends with these intelligent creatures, but what if they don't see the same? Space wars! 😀
Species of our type have an end goal of creating as vast an empire as possible. Right now we are bogged down by religion, hippies, and other things that prevents all of humanity from uniting. But that's because we think we are basically the only ones in the universe (how idiotic of an assumption. that many stars with planets, and we are unique? ha). If we ever see that isn't the truth, we'll probably at that very moment end up fighting for survival and develop a war technique to survive, and then bring the war to them. At that point, our empirical goals will already be in motion. At first it'll just be fight to survive, then it'll be conquer their world and spread our seed, and then start trying to spread it further. 😛
 
Originally posted by: Fayd
Originally posted by: alkemyst
any pics of the teacher?
Click to expand...

shouldnt you confirm whether or not the teacher is female before asking for pics?
Click to expand...


The teacher is in fact male 🙂


Thanks re: the nonrep sample, it's ok though, for this project we are just supposed to have an online discussion

This is a class exploring the field of environmental justice/ethics
 
Yes it's real, and yes I believe that we influence it, and are accelerating it. The rate of that acceleration is the debatable part IMO.

As for the environment having intrinsic value, I believe it does. We don't know every species, we don't know what's at the bottom of most of the ocean, we can't even figure out global warming. In short, we know shit about the environment beyond the basics and the species that we've known about long enough to study. Destroying it before we understand it could destroy the cure for cancer for all we know.

That, and I'm sorry, but I like trees. I much prefer them to say, the streets of New York City. They look nicer, they sure as hell smell nicer, and they're more peaceful. Intrinsic value goes beyond physical application or usage. I'm no psychologist, and even then I'm almost positive this is all theory, but we evolved to live in nature, not cities. Our brains have simply surpassed our instincts. You'll be hard-pressed to find a person who doesn't like a walk in the woods every once in a while, even though the walk may serve no practical purpose.

It may not make logical sense per-se, but IMO nature has intrinsic value far beyond the physical, and the mental is IMO much more important. Gotta take care of the reptilian and mammalian brains too. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top