Should we protect the environment?

[Aught3]

I was thinking about this topic the other day and trying to think of justifications for why we should protect the environment rather than strip all the usefulness out in order to fuel the economies of the world. I came up with two justifications and wondered if anybody had any more or objected to the project all together.

1. Future utility
Although we may be able to use the resources available to us now we may be able to make a better use of them in the future. Two examples are the rainforests and coal deposits. We could make use of the timber in the forests now or we could leave them intact and study them further. A lot a medicines are based on natural compounds produced by plant or animal life and the benefit from these future discoveries will outweigh the boost to the economy now. Coal deposits could be saved to help prevent a future ice age. By burning the coal now we lose that protection should the planet start to cool. Okay, far fetched example but I think you get my point about future utility.

2. Current necessity
It may not be obvious to us at first glance but humans are reliant on other organisms in order to survive. The big example is our supply of oxygen. We get about half from phytoplankton and half from trees (the exact numbers are still debatable) so it is important to protect both of these oxygen suppliers. Another example would be that of waste disposal. Although modern waste water plants do an excellent job of cleaning the water that flow into them not all human waste is processed and we rely on natural environment such as swamps, rivers, and seas to do the recycling for us. Too much waste and we wreck the ecosystem making the natural cleaning system much less effective.

So, anymore to add or do you disagree completely?

 

[Josan]

I strongly agree. Both point 1 and point 2 are both completely valid from my point of view. Personally I find Biodiversity extremely important and hope humanity does what it can to not diminish it even more.

 

[TheFearmonger]

How is this not the most reasonable conclusion ever? I see no problem with this, and I'm behind it 100%.

 

[obsidianavenger]

one is a somewhat weak criteria... it depends on an appeal to ignorance...

we might need it later... for... something.... *insert handwaving*

if future benefit can be somehow demonstrated thats a different story.

but i agree with 2. we do depend on the environment to a high degree. to completely screw it up is suicide.

 

[Nogre]

Ack...I want to reply now, but it's late and this is going to be a thorough post... So for now I'll just have to say I'll be digging up my notes on deep ecology, peak resources, and waste disposal.

 

[Aught3]

I suppose I agree that point one is the weaker of the two but I provided a little bit more than 'handwaving'. It is true that a lot of our drugs consist of compounds that that occur in natural environment and scientists are looking all the time to find new cures from the jungle. One example off the top of my head is the gastric-brooding frog. Scientists were interested in a possible cure for stomach ulcers but before they could collect sufficient samples the frog was found to have gone extinct. It is also true that the Earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. When the next cooling event occurs we could burn fossil fuels to heat the planet and stave off a disaster. Now, it is only one possible method of heating the planet but it's a pretty easy one that doesn't involve any progress in technology to carry out.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I suppose I agree that point one is the weaker of the two but I provided a little bit more than 'handwaving'. It is true that a lot of our drugs consist of compounds that that occur in natural environment and scientists are looking all the time to find new cures from the jungle. One example off the top of my head is the gastric-brooding frog. Scientists were interested in a possible cure for stomach ulcers but before they could collect sufficient samples the frog was found to have gone extinct. It is also true that the Earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. When the next cooling event occurs we could burn fossil fuels to heat the planet and stave off a disaster. Now, it is only one possible method of heating the planet but it's a pretty easy one that doesn't involve any progress in technology to carry out.

true, but the chances of those occurrences, and even the potential benefits if they were to occur, are small compared to the tangible benefit that resources could supply right now. there are A LOT of people living on earth right now. we require A LOT of resources just to live. obviously in modern times we're doing much more than "just living", but nonetheless, the things you mention don't seem compelling to me as reason for cutting back on use of resources. for example, talking about combating global cooling during a time when all the evidence points to global warming, caused by us, your example about coal seems like a big stretch. we seem to have no problems heating the planet

its true that many plants have been found to have medicinal effects... but as a percentage of all wildlife such plants are fairly rare. i don't think the off chance of a heretofore unknown miracle cure justifies large scale preservation efforts. then again, i did find this interesting:

Many modern remedies contain one or more ingredients derived from a wild plant or animal. One familiar example is aspirin. Its active ingredient is salicin, which is found in the bark of willow trees. A more recent example is taxol, a compound derived from the bark of the western yew in the old-growth forests in British Columbia. Taxol damages cancerous cells but not normal ones, and is being used to treat various kinds of cancers. Of Canada's 134 native tree species, 38 have one or more recorded medical uses according to aboriginal, folk, or modern medical sources.

Frogs may one day be the source of some astonishing medicines. Researchers in Australia, Japan, and the United States have found numerous medical uses for compounds extracted from the secretions of frogs, such as a nonaddictive painkiller 200 times more powerful than morphine, antibiotics, a possible treatment for schizophrenia, and a natural glue that could replace stitches after surgery. The natural world is indeed a potent medicine chest.

http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=221

anyhow, i think one important thing to remember is how sensitive ecosystems can be to changes. different populations within an area are all interdependent. so a dramatic change in the population of one species could throw off the whole area.

on the other hand, theres nothing intrinsically valuable about the way things are arranged now. the worry is more that if we mess up the environment too much we will push it to the point where we cannot sustain ourselves anymore. population pressure exceeding the "carrying capacity" of the local environment was the downfall of a lot of ancient civilizations.

 

[Aught3]

I'm fairly sure that as a global society we're already over the carrying capacity of this planet. We are using up resources faster than they can be replenished.

 

[Doc.]

of course, it obvious. Concurrence is going to kill this planet.. more importantly, how should we achieve this? I'm thinking solution should include the control of population, all mothers on planet earth should have no more that one child.

 

[Aught3]

A halt on our screaming populations would be a very good idea - although a lot of people seem to oppose this idea.

 

[obsidianavenger]

is there a way to achieve it without resorting to authoritarian measures? what do you do, fine people for having too many kids? sterilize them after a certain number?

i agree that the earth is becoming overpopulated, but i am not sure what to do about it except encourage people to have less children....

 

[Aught3]

China has some sort of tax system if you have more than one child you have to pay for the privilege. Another way to do it might be to give benefits to couples with no or one child an encourage the behaviour that way. I think it depends how urgent the project is. If we can wait then an education and change to the social conscience would be the best way to do it, if the change needs to happen quickly the government probably needs to step in.

 

[JacobEvans]

Aught, you have the uncanny ability to say only wise things.

:lol:

Perhaps to weigh the strengths of your two arguments, possible arguments against protecting the environment should be made and compared to your own.

 

[Doc.]

China has some sort of tax system if you have more than one child you have to pay for the privilege. Another way to do it might be to give benefits to couples with no or one child an encourage the behaviour that way. I think it depends how urgent the project is. If we can wait then an education and change to the social conscience would be the best way to do it, if the change needs to happen quickly the government probably needs to step in.

yeah I don't see any other way but taxes, and they should increase them over time. forced abortions will most probably lead to something really bad. I think this problem needs to be addressed as soon as possible, when people will literally feel that they are running out of food it will be too late.

 

[Giliell]

China has some sort of tax system if you have more than one child you have to pay for the privilege. Another way to do it might be to give benefits to couples with no or one child an encourage the behaviour that way. I think it depends how urgent the project is. If we can wait then an education and change to the social conscience would be the best way to do it, if the change needs to happen quickly the government probably needs to step in.

I wrote quite a lot of things about this in the over-population thread, so I'll only summarize it here quickly:
I'm pretty sure that if women all over the world had the same access to education, jobs and birth-control as in western Europe, we'd see the same effects as in western Europe: a dramatic drop in birth rates to a level where society gets problems.
Reducing birth-rates quickly will not solve problems, it will create different problems, such like societies that are too old on average. In Germany (with the usual amount of media-exageration) they're talking about the pensioners' republic and the tyrrany of the old.
Slowly reducing numbers would be much prefferable. I also disagree with people being able to buy baby-licenses.
The main problem I see here as usual is religion, because if you look at where the most rapid growth in population is happening, it's in religious areas and criminal organisations like the catholic church promoting procreation without limits. Those are also the areas where women are worst off (Africa and the muslim world) and have very little control over their sexuality and reproduction.
Another thing is of course to implement social security during old age. In less developed countries people rely on their children to provide for them when they're old so for them it's vital to have a couple while they're young.

 

[Josan]

Giliell got it right. If you look at the population statistics of industrialized countries you'll see that the population stabilizes, and in many cases actually start sinking and is kept up by outsiders moving into the country.

 

[Andiferous]

I wrote quite a lot of things about this in the over-population thread, so I'll only summarize it here quickly:
I'm pretty sure that if women all over the world had the same access to education, jobs and birth-control as in western Europe, we'd see the same effects as in western Europe: a dramatic drop in birth rates to a level where society gets problems.
Reducing birth-rates quickly will not solve problems, it will create different problems, such like societies that are too old on average. In Germany (with the usual amount of media-exageration) they're talking about the pensioners' republic and the tyrrany of the old.
Slowly reducing numbers would be much prefferable. I also disagree with people being able to buy baby-licenses.
The main problem I see here as usual is religion, because if you look at where the most rapid growth in population is happening, it's in religious areas and criminal organisations like the catholic church promoting procreation without limits. Those are also the areas where women are worst off (Africa and the muslim world) and have very little control over their sexuality and reproduction.
Another thing is of course to implement social security during old age. In less developed countries people rely on their children to provide for them when they're old so for them it's vital to have a couple while they're young.

I love the analysis. I think it's brilliant.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Just because otherwise we are all mostly on the same page (it is a rather easy question, after all), I will present a few opposing arguments to these ideas.

1. We are not at or above carrying capacity.
It may appear that we are simply because humankind has never made a concerted effort to establish renewable practices, but currently we are trending towards renewable farming, we are increasing crop yields while maintaining soil integrity. As more of our intellectual resources go towards developing truly renewable resources and farming methods the world's carrying capacity will increase.

2. Population growth is sustainable.
There has been a steady decline in world population growth since 1960, when population growth was above 2.5% to today when it is below 1.1%. If this downward trend continues, and we have every indication it will as non-western societies achieve educate women and provide birth control, then we can stop population growth completely and start a reversalin the next 40 years. Yes, the world population will be in the area of 10 billion, but with hydroponics and other advances we can still sustain that many humans.

3. Irreversible damage to biodiversity and ecosystems.
We are doing irreversible damage to biodiversity and ecosystems, no doubt about it. But it is certainly not on grander scale than the world has seen before with its ice ages and meteors and supervolcanoes that have permanently destroyed far more species than humans ever could. We are living in what is still an incredibly biodiverse age. Undoubtedly dinosaurs also wiped out millions of species during their reign. They just didn't care about it. Well I suppose the ones that destroyed their own food chains cared.
Yea this one is pretty weak.

To be honest, I really do believe that the solutions to the current environmental crises lie in technology and behavioral changes rather than in more draconian measures like mandated birthrates. We just have to continue making this an issue for all people, get the piles of garbage that we produce and the decreasing soil fertitlity on the news every night, and mankind will respond by changing their consumption habits and investing in new technologies which can fix these problems.

 

[borrofburi]

In regard to future use: we know we're getting better at genetics, and we know that these species contain genetic information that is likely to be valuable.

China has some sort of tax system if you have more than one child you have to pay for the privilege. Another way to do it might be to give benefits to couples with no or one child an encourage the behaviour that way. I think it depends how urgent the project is. If we can wait then an education and change to the social conscience would be the best way to do it, if the change needs to happen quickly the government probably needs to step in.

I don't know that i like tax systems on children, because what happens then is that families with lots of children end up impoverished, and now you have several children who had no choice but to be born into this world into abject poverty.

 

[Doc.]

I don't know that i like tax systems on children, because what happens then is that families with lots of children end up impoverished, and now you have several children who had no choice but to be born into this world into abject poverty.

correct me if i misunderstood, but the taxes spread only on children who where born after 9 months since the rule was (insert word here) activated?


edit: since there already is a topic, let's stay away from the overpopulation problem.