Majority of Americans Reject Theory of EvolutionNEW YORK (Oct. 23) – Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.This question on the origin of human beings, asked both this month and in November 2004, offered the public three alternatives: 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.The results were not much different between the answers to that question and those given when a specific timeline was included in the final alternative: God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.
This is why man invented Zantac.
JW
Nah. But we should be looking very seriously at this. Even if we found alternate energy and cut down on pollution, we’re probably still going to get that 1 degree over the next 50 years. It’s going to take a long time to implement any changes and have any affect on what’s already happened.
We should be looking at alternate energy plans regardless of global warming, anyway, IMO.
Well, from the way I understand it, yes definitely. Even a few degrees of change in the average global temperature has severe consequences in our ecology, The evidence that this is already happening is pretty overwhelming despite what a handful of Exxon funded renegade scientists might say. And I would disagree that aggressively converting our economy to more sustainable solutions would somehow ruin it. I believe it could be very beneficial (especially in the long run) and if played correctly could even be a huge boon for our country.
Think about how many tons of subsidized corn is simply thrown away in this country. One solution might be to convert all that waist into bio-fuel and perhaps save the american farmer and eliminate a good portion of our reliance on foreign oil in the process. Now who in there right mind would argue with that?
People who only care about the immediate bottom line profits of course. How sad for us all.
sword_strike: Hispanic comedian on the Comedy Channel. Very rude, VERY politically incorrect, but VERY funny guy. I think so, at least. Very low brow.
r4d, JW:
Global warming is definitely an issue. Between testing nuclear weapons & pollution, we need to stop looking at the short term, & start thinking long.
The old philosopher’s standby, “Man is the only creature that…”
To which I reply, “poops where it eats.”
The real question is: what do we want to leave our descendants?
I learned the Earth is an interglacial period, a relatively short period between glacial cycles. Keep in mind the cycles are thousands of years long. The main problem isn’t warming imo it’s the fact that we are depleteing free oxygen by burning coal, petroleum, nat. gas, for enery and all these combine free oxygen with carbon, hydrogen etc. CO2, CO, H2O, H2SO4,
to list a few.
The percent of oxygen in the atmosphere is dropping and will continue to drop as we burn more and cut down more trees the rate will increase.
At some point the outdoors will be unlivable with an oxygen tank.
Even if power plants put out zero emissions they still rob the atmoshpere of huge amounts of oxygen.
Why aren’t the politicions working on the things that really matter anyway. We will be arguing about gods existance down to the last breath of air. Just like the monty python argument clinic.. Yes he does..gasp wheeze,, no he does not, gasp ..gasp, he does to, does not ,,gasp.
We need to prioritize todays major issues and ALL work together, that’s everybody irregardless of beliefs.
sorry this is not inline with thread, but i’m just following the trend of it.
correction: the outdoors will be unlivable without an oxygen tank.
r4d,
those corn subsidies go to the megacorporate farms, and rarely do they help the family type farms, it’s just one more example of corporate welfare programs funded by the taxpayers.
NYD,
when the 2nd coming of jeezus is right around the corner, why worry?
It seems to me the most intelligent thing to do is to do all we can to reduce pollution ? in all its forms. Since there seems to be so much debate over the Global Warming issue, I don’t believe anyone could seriously debate whether there is too much pollution or not. I think we would all agree that pollution is a major problem. If we worked to correct those problems, I believe the global warming debate would go away?because if global warming is being influenced by our burning of fossil fuels and our polluting ways, reducing pollution and moving away from fossil fuels would help reduce our influence on the problem.
Personally, I am also in the camp that doesn’t know what to think on the Global Warming issue. I once heard an MIT Professor put the issue somewhat in perspective…
If meteorologists can’t predict what a local temperature will be three days out with much accuracy, why should we trust that climatologists can predict a global temperature change 50 to 100 years out?
I have read a ton of information on this subject, and it is very difficult to find research that does not have a certain agenda behind it, on both sides of the issue. As an artist that does a lot of wildlife work, this issue truly concerns me. For example, I no longer travel to Hudson Bay to photograph polar bears because ice doesn’t form there as it used to, and the bears are becoming harder to find as they are moving on to locate alternate locations to feed.
Truth is, I wish gasoline were $5 a gallon. I think then Americans would begin to demand alternate technologies that do not rely on the “black goo” to run our consumer-based society. Unfortunately, it seems many Americans have little concern for the environment if it means they have to change their lifestyle ? even slightly. They seem to respond much better when their pocket books are threatened.
Just my thoughts on this off-topic discussion
DVan: Read Maher’s book: “If you ride alone, you’re riding w/Bin Laden.” Very funny book.
Black goo -reminds me of the old “Beverly Hillbillies” show – “Up thru the ground came a-bubblin’ crude – oil, that is – black gold: texas tea.”
It’s funny in an ironic way (IMHO); here we have the oil, which came from dinosaurs, fuels our economy, yet the IDer’s refuse to believe in the source of it. *Sigh*.
Unfortunately, Americans have had it so easy for so long, we are SUCH creatures of convenience, that it’s a hard lesson to impart.
P.S NYD: No such word as ‘irregardless’. Yeah, Paulie on the Sopranos uses it all the time. Strunk & White’s Elements of Style – most commonly misused words. Sorry
mxracer652,
Good point. Sucks but true. But hey, I still think it’s a good idea.
reluctant,
I’ll pick up that book. And, I loved the point about IDers and oil. I think I’ll use that one in the future.
r4d,
I just wanted to point that out, I do think the gov’t should stop buying “extra” crops to rot in limestone caves in Kentucky. If you want to read up on ending corn subsidies & alternative fuel sources at the same time, google “E85 / Minnesota”. Long story short, MN gave tax breaks to open ethanol refineries in the state. Ended corn subsidies for farmers. In the end, farmers made more money by selling extra corn to refineries, refineries made more money via tax credits, MN made more money by tax revenue via less payouts, more in-state business, consumers make out via less taxes & cheaper fuel.
It’s not the scientist’s job to convince the moronic public about science. As a scientist, I want to do my job. Sure the idiots annoy me, but why should I waste my time. Someone close to me strongly believes that god created man in his current form. There’s no using logic to convince someone who makes dicisions based off faith. The conversation goes round and round in circles getting no where. If they want to live their lives in ignorance waiting to be “beamed up” into to heaven, then by my guest. They can’t comprehend scientific logic. What makes it so disgusting is that there’s loads of evidence, but they try to find insignificant ways to pick it apart! They need to get over themselves.
“There’s no using logic to convince someone who makes dicisions based off faith.”
If you’re not willing to make the effort to fight it, then you’ll also have to understand when such ignorance leads to laws that inhibit scientific progress, that push funding toward religious causes rather than scientific research.
reluctantatheist:
If that was the case we?d have run out of oil a couple of years after we started using it?dinosaurs (or any other terrestrial animals) could not have served as the biologic precursors to oil?their bio-mass relative to the abundance of known reserves was way too small. It had to have come from far more abundant planktonic marine organisms which were buried en masse as part of the source rock diagenesis. But again, considering the amount of known reserves combined with the estimated potential reserves, even that theory is now in doubt. It may well prove to be true that the ultimate source of hydrocarbons in the crust is the result of methane generation from the mantle. And if that is the case, the world would have a virtually limitless source of hydrocarbon energy.
Hmmm. Could it possibly be by design?
jcc
Or could it be that man, using his evolved brain has simply discovered more sources for fuel and warmth since he started smacking flint against other rocks and accidently starting fires?
Discovery, not design.
If it WAS design, it’s another example of a lousy one.
Fossil fuels produce mass quantities of pollutants, and let’s not forget massive environmental damage ? la exxon valdez.
If there truely IS a designer why did he make clean energy such as solar, wind or cold fusion so hard to develop while coal, the worst of them all, is found everywhere in mass quantities?
Either it’s like Karen says and we discover and develop more energy sources as we go along, our a lousy desinger spent too much time patting himself in the back and forgot to privide it’s pet creature with means to generate power that won’t pollute it’s environment.
Oh right, why need to conserve our planet, the end of times is near.
Silly me!
sword_strike
If there WAS a designer, why are we mere mortals so good at finding flaws in the design?
Oh, yeah, right. We can’t KNOW the mind of God. Even if something he designed seems utterly stupid to us, it still must be perfect for HIS plan.
Yeah. No true Scotsman; No true Omni.
I keep forgetting about that end-times thing too. If only I could remember that, I could just sit on my couch and eat chips, drink beer, and wait for it.
Don’t forget pretzels!
The world’s most useful snack
jcc:
“It had to have come from far more abundant planktonic marine organisms which were buried en masse as part of the source rock diagenesis.”
from answers.com -
“During the past 600 million years incompletely decayed plant and animal remains have become buried under thick layers of rock. It is believed that petroleum consists of the remains of these organisms but it is the small microscopic plankton organism remains that are largely responsible for the relatively high organic carbon content of fine-grained sediments”
So you’re partially right.
“Hmmm. Could it possibly be by design?”
Wow. How mind-bendingly cosmic. Are you perchance inferring pre-destination?
So we were destined to drive SUV’s, wipe out entire species due to pollution, warp the weather patterns, rape the planet of it’s resources, basically defecate where we eat (pardon the crudity: I know it offends your sense of esthetics)?
So your omniscient deity saw fit to predict EVERYTHING, but his prophets couldn’t prophesy this, & thus there are no scriptures, prophecies, in re: to this? No warnings, nothing?
I confess to some revulsion at this. I am now so much farther from fellowship w/this savage god than I was before.
I should rather blink out of existence, than keep that sort of company, thank you very much.
RA
Yes, yes, YES!!! And, since the dawn of time we were predestined to have such marvels as the movies “Police Academy” and “Debbie Does Dallas,” as well as leisure suits, styrofoam peanuts, Minnie Pearl, and God’s most ingenious and fabulous creation, “SouthPark”!!!
karen:
Especially funny was the boxing match between Satan (big as a house), & Jesus. Satan bets against himself, & wins all the money! Hehehe!
Or Cartman watches the ‘Passion’, & becomes a Nazi.
They do go overboard sometimes. That thing w/FEMA was WAY over the top.
Still, right up there w/the Simpsons. Or the Family Guy.
karen: it all smacks of Calvinism, of John Calvin, from answers.com:
“Calvin’s most famous and controversial doctrine is that God chooses to save some people and not others, a notion known as “election” or “predestination.”
Jefferson puts it most succinctly:
“His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did. The being described in his five points is … a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 363).
My pardon, jcc, if you aren’t a Calvinist. Perhaps I misinterpreted. But Calvinism pretty much puts the kibosh on free will, if I may be so bold.
karen: so far, “South Park” has my vote of your list of ‘predestined’ marvels, as the best.
“Respect my authori-TIE!” Hehe.
RA
Indeed! Years from now, (if they’re not already) students will be comparing SouthPark to the Bible and drawing comparisons. The parallels between Kenny and Jesus are obvious, even though Kenny was resurrected many times more than Christ! Hehe.
I was trying to think of really tacky things. Then South Park entered my mind and I thought, “pearls before swine.”
Just imagining god predestining SouthPark makes me smile…almost like when I think of him creating Adam and Eve and predestining babyback ribs. Wonder if when he was dropping manna from the sky to the Jews, he thought,”AHA! Microwave popcorn! THAT’S gonna be a good one!”
Watch out for Mr. Hanky!
UuuMm…kay?
Dont forget the pilot episode, that featured a street fight between Jesus and Santa Claus to become ruler of xmas.
reluctantatheist:
Oooou. I think I need to get my money back; obviously answers.com knows a lot more about petroleum geology than that fully accredited university that took all my money?
Ooops. Amazing how one forgotten closing blockquote tag can make a mess of a post.
Comment from: jcc [Member]
“The real question is, if we really are destroying our planet with our way of life, are you willing to give it all up and go back to the stone-age?”
Of course not, and you know perfectly well that this is a silly question. But it IS possible to replace coal power with hydro, wind or solar power. Better yet, cold fusion in the not so distant future.
It is also possible to recuperate, re-use and recycle. It IS possible to develop better hybrid/hydrogen cars. Print books on recycled paper, STOP dumping industrial waste in rivers…
What about providing cheap grain or some other type of help to south american countries so they stop cutting the rainforest for more farms?
I think you get the picture.
It’s not about reverting back to cavemen, it’s about not waisting our planet’s ressources and to stop useless polution.
sword_strike:
Sure, it?s possible, but is it practical on the scale needed for our level of consumption? Hydro requires lots of water and topography with lots of relief?but then there?s the problem of dams causing habitat destruction?bummer. Wind power requires lots of constant wind and lots of huge windmills?that not only take up huge amounts of land and look god-awful (just ask Walter Cronkite and RFK Jr.), but can mulch entire flocks of birds at once. Solar farms have the same problems as windmill farms (except for weed-eating the birds?those enormous panels just destroy terrestrial eco-systems. And exactly when will cold fusion be a viable, large-scale energy source? And will it be guaranteed to be environmentally friendly?
And the concept of hydrogen cars is a real knee-slapper?where will all that hydrogen come from??hydrogen wells??
Again, it?s a matter of practicality, not possibility. Yeah, I ?get the picture,? to stop using fossil fuels without a viable, practical, large-scale replacement energy source would send us back to the stone-age.
jcc
Well, it’s not the “lesser” animals who are creating huge garbage landfills, dumping pollutants into the rivers, driving SUVs, storing nuclear waste, etc.
Yeah. And hurricanes cause erosion and storms cause mudslides, and volcanoes spew ash into the air, and meteors can threaten to set us spinning out of control.
But we’re talking about man’s influence and what we can do about it, aren’t we? Oh, no, wait. We were talking how this was all going to happen no matter what we did, cos God ORDAINED it.
It’s not an either/or situation. We have to use our intellects, look around and say, “Shit! We’ve gone too far in our search for creature comforts! Time to tighten the belt and make an effort to change so that our children’s children’s children will have a decent planet to live on.”
Comment from: jcc [Member]
“And the concept of hydrogen cars is a real knee-slapper?where will all that hydrogen come from??hydrogen wells??
Again, it?s a matter of practicality, not possibility. Yeah, I ?get the picture,? to stop using fossil fuels without a viable, practical, large-scale replacement energy source would send us back to the stone-age.”
Well, hydrogen can easely be extraced from water you know, did it in chemistry class in high school. The only current problem is storage.
Wind farms can be installed along power lines like it is done here.
I agree with you that clean sources are currently impractical, and that’s why we need to invest in research in these types of power instead of laughable “clean coal”.
It’s just frustrating that year after year acid rain and the like get worse in Qu?bec, and ALL of our power is from hydro and wind power. We have a single nuclear one and it is getting closed down soon. Yet we get all those polution clouds from coal powerplants blown north from the states.
sword_strike:
And exactly how did you do it?with tweezers? You can?t just ?shake? those pesky hydrogen atoms off a water molecule?it takes energy, (i.e. electricity) and lots of it to yank ?em free.
Since you?re closing down your only nuke plant, are you sure that you still generate as much as you need and don?t end up, somewhere along the way, buying what you don?t from the states?
Comment from: jcc [Member]
“Since you?re closing down your only nuke plant, are you sure that you still generate as much as you need and don?t end up, somewhere along the way, buying what you don?t from the states?”
LOL!
We SELL huge quantities of clean power to the states. The average of the last five years is about 1 billion dollars worth per year.
jcc:
“Oooou. I think I need to get my money back; obviously answers.com knows a lot more about petroleum geology than that fully accredited university that took all my money?”
Sorry, didn’t know you had a degree in this. What degree do you have, precisely? Mind you, I’m simply an undegreed layman, will gladly take correction if I’m off on any of this.
I cede some of it to you, & you resort to sarcasm. How nice. Can you tell me precisely how many dinosaur fossils went into the creation of petroleum? I’m genuinely curious.
“Has it ever occurred to you that the sun can impart as much energy to the atmosphere (charging it and heating and thereby ?warp[ing] the weather patterns?) with a single flare than what it takes humans decadesto do by burning fossil fuels?”
Well, Duh! Only I think you may be marginalizing here, as nuclear power is capable of doing this as well (although I’m unclear as to the degree it can: I’m sure you’ll see fit to educate lil ole ignorant me).
“And can you please explain to me why the advent of intelligent, tool-using, fossil-fuel-burning, life on this planet is such a non sequitur to you? [blah, blah, blah, to quote you] brains to make use of an available and (so far) only practical energy source is somehow abnormal, even sinister.”
Why, you know me so well! I think you’re doing something I’m not: projecting my ego over the whole topic. I am just observing. You’re the 1 providing the emotional content here, not I. Apparently armchair psychology wasn’t 1 of the required courses for your degree.
Abnormal? Well, unnatural. Before you go into some detailed analysis of what I ACTUALLY mean, let me ask you this: would you sit in your garage, w/the car engine on, & read a novel for a few hours, in a closed space? Engine emissions are poisonous. It’s destroying the planet. It’s wrecking the environment. Period. The end. I’m sure you’re aware that there are oxygen vending machines in Japan? Have you been to China? Water tables are hopeless polluted in quite a few 3rd world countries.
“So, which is it?are we, in spite of our ?luckily evolved? intelligence, supposed to sit idly by in caves and just ponder our meaningless existence, [blah, blah, blah, to quote you] are you willing to give it all up and go back to the stone-age?”
What a surprise. Shoulda seen that coming.
That’s a really obnoxious statement. I had expected better from you. Trying to tie in ID w/a discussion of environmental issues.
I am most assuredly NOT trying to advocate we all ‘turn back the clock’ & ‘go live in caves’. I find this sort of argument idiotic, truth be told. We can only go forward, not backward. ‘Let’s bulldoze civilization, & start from scratch’ is the statement of a moron, & I assure you I am not that. We’re stuck w/the damage: we need to ameliorate what’s done, & find alternatives we can live with. Otherwise, what do we leave our descendants?
I have seen similar arguments on the Ayn Rand website. Environmentalists are consistently portrayed as ‘hippie-dippy tree-huggers who all want to go back in time to the stone age’, & it’s this sad, demented effort at ad hominem/reductio ad absurdum/poison-the-well nonsense that keeps people from understanding & addressing the issues that confront us in this post-industrialist age.
It’s marginalizing a real problem: it’s a negative reinforcement of a stereotype.
Your degree notwithstanding, your condescending tone is unappreciated, your level of education doesn’t bolster your opinion, IMHO, nor does it impress me.
I defer to logic & reason, thank you very much.
The theory of non-locality in quantum physics demonstrates that all things are interconnected.
In Traditional Chinese Medicine, the doctor treats the body as if it were a garden (unlike West. Med., where the pathology is treat the symptom, not the roots). Apply that on a macrocosmic level, if you will, & the pattern emerges.
I’ll leave you w/this quote. Try to listen to the message, don’t worry about the messenger: I’m aware of the source, & the ongoing debate about it. The words ring true, regardless:
“All things are bound together. All things connect. What happens to the Earth happens to the children of the Earth. Man has not woven the web of life. He is but one thread. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”
That’s my nickel’s worth. Spend it wisely, & well.
to say that crude comes from methane is absurd, the heavier crude is cracked down into the lighter hydrocarbons, methane being the lightest. Entropy dictates this. Burning hydrogen is viable, unfortunately our largest source of hydrogen is from hydrocarbons (fossil fuels), and to remove it from water requires more energy than just burning the fossil fuel in the first place. But I have read recently that somebody figured out how to do it for free, with manure and sunlight. Both of which are abundant, go figure.
mxracer652, the trick with free hydrogen is to build clean powerplants who supply power to the grid, and spend that power making hydrogen when the grid requires less power instead of letting that power go to waste.
sword,
that is good in theory, but there are things the producers do to not waste so much, and I am not disagreeing with you. However, when the electric demand goes down, so does the load on the generator, and the turbine that drives that generator, and the load on the boiler, and thus the fuel load goes down as well. The boilers aren’t run wide open all day, every day.
There are a few other things to consider, suppliers can sell power on the US grid, and due to timezones, it smooths out the consumer usage. Also, industry with heavy electric usage is usually hit with a large “penalty” by the producer for operating during “peak” hours, usually 7a-5p, and this is one other way to smooth out the load.
There is waste, however, I’m not sure that there is enough to make an appreciable amount of H2, without actually having to use more fuel.
That’s the thing, the system uses clean but not always constant sources like solar or windfarms. When the wind is blowing or the sun is shining you use the extra power to make hydrogen.
All good in theory, but still not perfect yet. But I would prefer that research be done in this field instead of “clean” coal.
ss-
agreed, I can’t find the manure/sunlight/hydrogen article unfortunately. It looked very promising.
reluctantatheist:
One in Geology and one in Computer Science.
It’s a bad habit, I know, and I apologize.
As I tried to point out earlier, none. The organic material must be buried en masse as part of the source rock sediments; terrestrial (land) animals, when they die, aren’t deposited in the sediments that end up accumulating the organic material that becomes oil?it’s nearly exclusively microscopic marine organisms that provide the organic mass.
The point I was trying to make is that the sun has a far greater influence on our climate, in a far shorter time, than anything humans can do.
Asking a reasoned and practical question is ?projecting emotional content??
No, and what fool would? But that’s not what’s happening?CO2 emissions are a ?natural? phenomenon; humans are just making more now.
If they’re ?wrecking? the planet then why has the US actually been able to improve our air quality while continually increasing how much we burn?
No argument here. Too bad we can’t make all those third-worlders do the right thing, huh?
As do I. You say, ?We’re stuck w/the damage,? I say, it’s not permanent?the more efficient we become at using fossil fuels and the more we understand the environmental impact it has, the cleaner it will get?because that has been demonstrated to be true. The earth’s eco-systems have proven to be much heartier than we once thought. Yes, we can do temporary, local damage to it, but they do recover. And in light of all that, I have no doubt that the cheap and plentiful energy source we have in petroleum, is not by accident.
jcc,
the mass produced automobile produces very little co2 now, catalytic convertors turn it to co & o2 (we all know CO2 is not poisonous, CO is, it bonds to iron in the bloodstream easier than o2 does, thus leading to asphyxiation). The reason our air quality is improving is that we are comparing it to the earlier half of the 20th century. You can claim it better or worse, and be right both ways, it all depends on your starting point.
My .02 on your last comment, fossil fuels are a limited resource, no one is pumping oil wells continuously only to find out they are filling up. 150 years ago, you could make the same argument that you stated about wood being cheap & plentiful, and by design, then after that coal, then after that, liquid hydrocarbons, so on and so forth. We keep progressing through more advanced and efficient fuel sources, just look at what has happened since the industrial revolution. Petroleum, while abundant & easily used than any previous fuel source is not very energy dense, by any means, and it leads me to believe it will go by the wayside as well.
jcc:
“it’s a bad habit, I know, and I apologize.”
I appreciate that. Likewise, sorry if I got a little outraged myself.
“As I tried to point out earlier, none.”
Is there any short version by which that can be proven? Some way to ferret out the DNA, molecular composition, etc. to provide evidence that there are no dinosaur remains involved in the creation of fuel? I am genuinely curious, is all. Link would be fine.
“The point I was trying to make is that the sun has a far greater influence on our climate, in a far shorter time, than anything humans can do.”
Be that as it may, I am curious as to how the sun’s flares impact the thinning ozone layer, the gradual poisoning of the water tables, the extinction of X amount of species a day, oil spills, the reduction of air quality (breathability).
“Asking a reasoned and practical question is ?projecting emotional content??
& I quote:
“And can you please explain to me why the advent of intelligent, tool-using, fossil-fuel-burning, life on this planet is such a non sequitur to you?“
And:
“You seem to think human activity is an unnatural consequence of our intelligence?that by using our ?evolved? brains to make use of an available and (so far) only practical energy source is somehow abnormal, even sinister.”
Also:
“It?s soooo funny how you all can only sing that one-note samba of doom and gloom?an how humans (i.e. the greatest ?accident? of the universe) can, merely by virtue of using our brains, possibly do all that damage.”
Please explain how that isn’t projecting emotional content.
“If they’re ?wrecking? the planet then why has the US actually been able to improve our air quality while continually increasing how much we burn?”
Improve? Please provide statistics. Or perhaps the censored EPA report of 2004.
“No argument here. Too bad we can’t make all those third-worlders do the right thing, huh?”
Well, too far gone in some places. We need to clean up our own backyard. Provide an example. Would’ve been nice if Shrub Jr. hadn’t pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty/Protocol. The Shrub admin. has been notoriously difficult in environmental issues.
“The earth’s eco-systems have proven to be much heartier than we once thought.”
I understand this (to a limited degree) better than most. However: despite planet Earth’s tremendous self-healing capabilities (such as the ocean’s capacity to disseminate radioactivity, for 1), we are indeed talking about a series of intricately linked, complex, fragile ecosystems.
Let’s take this down to the microcosmic level.
Muhammed Ali was a great boxer, capable of taking incredibly powerful blows to the body & head, & returned an incremental set of jabs, combined w/powerful hooks & crosses. Incrementally, he’d chip away at the opponent, until said opponent was worn away by attrition. Conversely, now that he has grown older, having taken too many shots to the head, is afflicted by Parkinson’s.
Likewise, another example, is that a child is capable of absorbing damage that would decimate an adult. Also, able to heal more quickly from broken bones, etc. Do we allow the child to then engage in these activities on a daily, even hourly basis? Of course not. Why? Because long-term damage will ensue.
If we take these micro-examples, & apply them on a larger scale, the ramifications are (at least to me) frightening.
We are seeing a great many natural disasters recently. Not talking about the tectonic 1’s (am unsure if solar flares or pollution impact these: probably not, is my guess).
Don’t get me wrong: I’m a humanist, ergo, I love humanity. But that doesn’t prevent me from pointing out my species innate capacity for short-term convenient solutions in lieu of long-term repercussions.
It’s both microcosmic as well as macrocosmic in scope, IMHO. It’s a matter of teaching people that
A. The earth is not a litter box
B. The earth isn’t a trash can
C. The earth is where we live
D. You don’t poo where you do (sorry!)
E. Until we have another place to live, we need to treat what we have w/a modicum of respect.
Changes need to be made. Not last-minute 1’s. As a species, we seem to (not always, but as a rule) resort to such. No, turning back the clock’s not an option (leastways, not a reasonable 1).
I for 1 am not looking forward to the day that my grandchildren (if ever I have any) need to wear Hazmat suits for a walk in the park.
I think those are all fair questions, & examples.
That’s my nickel’s worth, anyways.
Look Of Love Pony Express Hair
His original designs, such as the Pony Express and100% Human Hair Braids & Switches Butterfly Surprises Fabulous Falls Hair B Tweenz Honeyc…
chase the hottie .com
chase the hottie .com