just thought i'd mention this...
every day for free you can go to therainforestsite.com. if you click on it just once a day it funds for the preservation of i think 11.4 square feet or something of forest. (its with the hungersite and breastcancersite.com)its cool cuz its a little way to help that can make a big difference

But if we're so minute compared to nature, that might mean that we could die off if the environmental climate changes. I'd have a little more hope even in the face of all this environmental destruction if I knew that we already had the ability to survive and rebuild the environment easily, but I don't think we do. I think most of the damage we do will be long-lasting. I mean, think about it... we can't even live on the moon or on Mars yet! How could we live on a barren wasteland of an Earth?
Well, Marine, you can do what you want to (unless you're the type to dump toxic chemicals in places where they might hurt someone... but I don't think you're doing that), but I will continue to recycle and save electricity and such, and I will continue to recommend that others do the same. Hopefully more environmentally-friendly people will be able to clean up your messes.

Jill

Im not saying that companies should not conserve the enviroment. It is bad for buisness to conserve, but it is the companies choice. I myself would not conserve because I would want to excersize my right of making as much money as I can.

Jill, nature changes on its own. We are so minute in the face of nature nothing we do really affects us.

Strangleove, we will adapt, and it will not take one hundred years.

So you're telling me that you still don't approve of conservation, even if it's by personal choice and not by government regulation??? Come on, PERSONAL CHOICE! As in, no one's putting a gun to your head! And saving money... isn't that a good thing?! Bein g opposed to the government getting involved in environmental causes is one thing (that I totally disagree with you on, but I can see some kind of reasoning for that), but being opposed to environmentalism in all forms...? If that's truly how you feel, no w it's MY turned to be shocked and appalled!

It's a widely accepted belief in the scientific community that one factor that contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs was climatic change. That is one thing that is happening right now due to environmental waste: GLOBAL WARMING. We are not gods, we are animals, and compared to the dinosaurs, we are not that much more capable of reversing catastrophic enivironmental changes as they were. Even with all our knowledge and technology, there is still much we don't know...

Jill

Of course we can adapt, in a century perhaps, but in the proccess we'll lose thousands of lives, our industry will be crippled, freedom will be restricted, countries will be struck with famine. It's MUCH easier, cost effective, and in the long run VASTLY beneificial to keep sensible envrionmental controls on ourselves so we don't HAVE to adapt.

If the earth will not adapt the way we want it to, then we will adapt to the earth. You and I, strangelove, both no with our sciences growing information, technology and application that adapting is very realistic. Period.

Marine- The earth is NOT going to adapt in any way that will be good for us. Period.

Sure, redjill, those thing save money that a company has to pay on bills. But that means they won't be able to produce as much because of enviroment costs. The things they could produce in the time they save power would reap far greater profits for them than 'saving' the enviroment.

The earth will adapt. The earth wiped dinasours off the planet, not the dinasours, and that event was something far more deadly than anything we will ever be able to imagine. And yet we stand here today.

I've been thinking... I hope Marine, although he doesn't approve of government regulation on industry for environmental reasons, has no problem with personal choice when it comes to conservation. Unfortunately, the government can only do so much to help (how much to help depends on where you stand politically). But it doesn't really cost you anything to recycle materials, use less electricity, save fuel, use less paper, etc... in fact, you'd be saving lots of money! It's just ignorant and stupid to waste things when it costs both you AND the environment. Think about it...

Jill

Marine- There is a difference between temporary security and regulation that prolongs our environment and standard of living. Proper environmental controls keep our economy from burning itself out or damaging public and private property. This is not a do nothing gun law, a tax to support pork policies, or a needles invasion of personal privacy for saftey. This is a rational and needed system to manage the output of materials proven to cause severe damage or disease. We are not giving up liberty, we are preserving it.

Acid rain: The reason acid rain is not a severe problem currently is because of government regulation on SO2. As for your adaptablility theory, I will point out one glaring flaw.
The reason certain bacteria are becoming resistant is due to thier high rate of reproduction. These diseases replicate once every few hours, We replicate about once every 20 or 30 years. Our ecology is simliar. Trees replicate on a scale of years, as do animals. Nothing will adapt. Any genetic predisposition to acid resistance will not spread quickly enough or effectivly enough because the overwheming majority of mulitcellular species reproduce sexually. The smaller the gene pool, the less effective the speicies.
If it takes several decades for bacteria, think about how long it will take for entire ecosystems of huge amounts of varied and multicelluar organisms to adapt and reform an effective and productive system.
Answer: Too long.

I could go into the fact that your not simpley introducing a posion but instead changing the entire Ph of a system but that's another point.

I am confussed Strangelove you seem to pleased with the fact that we are allowing the government to take away some of our industrial freedoms to have a beautiful planet. Isn't one of your favorite qoutes 'Anyone who would give up a peice of their liberty for a little temporary security deserves no liberty at all.'? Are you saying that you deserve no liberty at all? Well it is clear that that is what Franklin would think you you or anyone else on this post.

I am glad you admitted that your scenario was 'rough' (It was really unrealistic but it is trivial to argue that once again). I am also glad you braught up the point of acid rain. We are fine with our current acid rain. People aren't dropping dead because of it. True building are falling apart because of it but that is mainly do to ill materials. Lets be honest in 100 years if acid rain is still going and is worse we will be fine. Do you know why? We will have adapted and so will have the enviroment. How do I know this? Pennisilun (I will call it penn for short.). When penn was first introduced everyone used it and it killed almost every diases a person could get. But the more and more people used it the less and less affective the pen was and for a period of time it was useless. A purley natural thing, bacteria, adapted and became ineffected by a deadly man-made medicine. A lot like nature will adapt.

Power outweighs beauty every time? I pray that this is not the motto of our world's leaders. The world you speak of is heading more towards a 1984-like society than democracy.

Ah, yes I see, Marin16, would you also support screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre? That is against the law, yet some would argue it's an infringement on the 1st Amendment. Those people are idiots.

My scenerio is not that far out of line. It's an extremely rough scenario, but is CAN happen. Acid rain HAS ALREADY caused ph levels to shift all over the North East, and other parts of the country. This you cannot dispute. We have the capability to change our world for the worst through irresponsible management of resources and emissions. However blind we are, we are not nearly as blind as you are.

Stragnelove, I liked your last post. Do you know why? Because it goes along with me saying that the earth will eventually be a gas mass like saturn or a rock mass like the moon. Neither your idea or mine will ever happen. Your out of control scenario lost sight of reality and is impossible. No CREDIBLE scinetists would validate that 'arguement'.

Enviromental government intervention limits the income an industry to make. That is sad and a loss of freedom. How blind are you people? Your economic freedoms are being taken away from you and all you people can say is 'good, at least earth look beutiful and aren't under 10 million feet of water'

I am going to quoute strangelove hear, 'YOU CAN"T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS'. Your absolutley right. Any person who is willing to give up ANY kind of freedom is not worthy of freedom at all.

Marine16

YOU CAN HAVE AN INDUSTRY THAT IS REGULATED BY SENSIBLE AND NESSICARY RESTRICTIONS THAT IS STILL VERY PROFITABLE.

How many times must that be said. American industry is moderately regualted and is still making money. Some more is needed to get rid of sulpher dioxide and other problem substances, but this will NOT cripple the profit in any way. We will be fine.

And also please recognize this:
Good, you know that the ice caps are displacing water and therefore will not raise sea levels if melted. However, the Antartic continent is land, and billions of cubit feet of ice are contained ON LAND, without displacement.
If the western ice feilds (the ones in most danger) melt, we're talking about 15-30 feet increases. That means New York, London, LA, Hong Kong, the Medditerainian, all flooded and useless.

Now, if we have the eastern feilds slip off into the ocean, there's a potential for up to a 700 foot increase in sea level. This mean the destruction of civilization as we know it.
The manner in which these ice feilds would "melt" (they really would slide off into the ocean, not melt) means that the will displace huge amounts of water in a short period of time. Maybe a few hours, maybe a few weeks.

Now having said that, Global Warming is not in our hands. We can't control it because it's not being caused by us. There's another topic for this, discuss it in there.

Earth does not have to become a barren rock to destroy us. Our economy and population, and therefore all of our money and power (there's the strength you rant about all the time) is reliant on the continual production of minerals, chemicals, and most importantly of all, food.

Now, lets say the rainfall turns acid in the Great Plains, kills off a good portion of the crops. Huge amounts of money lost right there. However, since we didn't give a crap about the environment, we also didn't practice crop rotation. So as a result, we get another Dust Bowl. But this one doesn't stop, because it's not caused by a drought, the problem is in rain. the soil turns acidic, farms fail, the price of food all over the nation and the world climbs, which leads to less prepared food, restraunts close, unemployment rises, more income is spent on food, rivers are clogged with dust and require freaquent dredging, the ecosystem of the rivers is destoryed due to silt. The rivers erode in floods now that lack of crop cover allows water to rush into ever deepening gorges.
Roads erode, bridges collapse, more money spent. More economic rescession. More money spent cleaning up what is being destroyed. Workers die, compensation is required, More money.
It goes on and on. To the point that the country isn't so strong anymore, so someone less forgiving decides to go to war with us.

It's a vicous cycle, you cannot expect to pollute uncontrolably and still make money. YOU CAN"T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

It seems everyone loves the money that big industries rake in but then they love to complain about how horrible the industries are for polluting. You people can't have it both ways, and it seems everyone one of you does.

Heaven, I am not going to lie, I do favor the income of buisneeses over our planet. Why? Because when buisnesses make more money, so does the government. When the government makes more money, they gain more power. Every nation agrees with me. The richest nations are the strongests. Strong nations aren't measured by how much clean air they have, how much clean water they have, how many people they make recycle, how little litter they have, how beautiful and spiritual their rainforests are, or how beautiful their landscape is. Strong nations are measuered by a strong military, strong government, and how much money they make. Power outwieghs beauty in every thing and it is impossible and ignorant to argue against that.

Heaven your command for me to prove that the earth will be around in two hundred years is obsurd because you have no proof that it won't be. It has been around for a lot longer than 200 years so it is safe to assume we will be good to go for the next two hundred years. There is absolutley no way this planet will ever be inhabitable. Earth will never become a solid rock like the moon or a gas mass like saturn. Tempatures may get hot but they will never get so hot they will ause eveyone to die. The ice caps will never flood the entire earth because they are allready displaced. We will never run out of air and our growing knoweldge of nature through science proves me right.

If I am in no positions, Heaven, to make claims than niether are you. Than neither is anyone else on this site. It is ridculous that you said that and an embarassement to this site. All anyone has on this site is their opinion, mine is no less valid than yours so do not ever say I am in no position to state my opinion.

How can people who grew up in a capitalist society be so against the advancement of industries?

I hate always having to argue with the same person Marine, but how can you possibly speak so insensitively of the timeless beauty of our planet for the sake of capitalism, and business, which has been around for only a couple hundred years in comparison?
In an earlier post you claimed that everybody knows that in 200 years the Earth will be around, with the "why bother" atittude. Well PROVE IT. I doubt that you have the scientific or general knowledge to make such a claim as that.
You also spoke of the rainforests as something unnecessary, where the wood would be put to better use. Have you even been to the rainforest? The cost of the beauty and the spiritual feelings associated with it that someone else said, is comparable to the income that any company might make from its wood, (or any tobacco company for that matter). Call it romanticism on my part, but it's merely cold-hearted on yours.
You are in no position to make such claims, and some things you're saying make me sick.

I think we're getting a bit off-topic here...

I believe that the government has to put these regulations on businesses to keep them from shooting themselves in the foot (by wasting up all the resources they need to keep the company running), and from killing off their consumers. What good is all that money if people die? The people running the companies might even start getting sick and dying too... ever think about that? When it comes to the environment, EVERYONE is effected: it doesn't matter what species you are, or how free you are, or how much money you make... if the ecosystem collapses, we ALL fall with it!

I don't know how some people can be religious and yet have no problem hurting the environment, since (coming from a Judeo-Christian perspective) isn't nature created by God? Yes, so was humankind, but to destroy this beautiful world is to be ungrateful to some of God's most precious gifts. I know that I feel the most close to God when I'm in the mountains, or by the ocean, or even in the desert... And isn't greed a sin, anyway?

Jill
P.S.: Sorry if anyone here doesn't believe in God or anything, but this is just my view of things...

My last post was not untimely. And I have been reading your posts.

Why do people earn money? In itself it is worthless, but it buys things. The American dream is not about money, it is about attaining security, comfort, and satifaction. How are these things attained? Most people would tell you through purchase of material goods. For example, a large house, financial security, etc. These are the things they want, not money itself.