The ones who will suffer are never the ones who deserve to suffer. The rich fat-cat CEOs, politicians, royalty, etc. will continue to live the high life. It's the poor of all nations who do the actual suffering. They don't deserve that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Climate Change - Bad News
- Thread starter Knight of Albion
- Start date
The ones who will suffer are never the ones who deserve to suffer. The rich fat-cat CEOs, politicians, royalty, etc. will continue to live the high life. It's the poor of all nations who do the actual suffering. They don't deserve that.
Strangely enough, I saw this a couple of days ago...
From:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24208686
Scientists have discovered that smoke from cooking stoves and dirty engines is causing glaciers to melt faster.
The glaciers are already under pressure from climate change. The smoke also deposits black soot on to the glaciers, which makes them absorb more heat.
A project in India, partly funded by British aid, is trying to get families to swap their traditional mud cookers for cleaner cookers - but they are more expensive and some families cannot afford them.
Roger Harrabin travelled to Tanda, a village in northern India, to see the effects of the old cookers, and find out how the new stoves work.
From:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24208686
Scientists have discovered that smoke from cooking stoves and dirty engines is causing glaciers to melt faster.
The glaciers are already under pressure from climate change. The smoke also deposits black soot on to the glaciers, which makes them absorb more heat.
A project in India, partly funded by British aid, is trying to get families to swap their traditional mud cookers for cleaner cookers - but they are more expensive and some families cannot afford them.
Roger Harrabin travelled to Tanda, a village in northern India, to see the effects of the old cookers, and find out how the new stoves work.
Not talking about specific individuals, talking about the entire species.
Regardless, I'm generally not a fan of framing things in "deserve" terms, although I did so earlier. Everybody gets exactly what they "deserve" - they get exactly what lot was fated to them. I'm mostly making a cause-effect reference, not a moralistic judgment. Humans screw up the entire biosphere? They get exactly what they deserve - were fated to - for doing so.
I understand. However, I must disagree with you on everyone getting what they deserve or "fate". I don't see how it's fair for those who had no part in the wrecking of things to suffer for it, human or non-human. So I can't say I believe in fate or karma. To me, we are the only instruments of justice or vengeance that exist. Sure, you can say that maybe they're punished or rewarded as needed in another life but that doe nothing for me or us as a whole now so it seems a bit empty. But I suppose that's another discussion.
There would still be "people who are most likely to feel the worst effects had nothing to do with making the non-decisions that keep making things gradually get worse" then.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Do you think your average person in a developed country has any more meaningful input on those "non-decisions" than an average person in an undeveloped region?
I don't see that as relevant. The climate changing decisions are still made by the developed nations.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Do you think that climate change is a decision?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Would deciding to have multiple children and contribute to a growing population be one of those decisions that are climate changing?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
funny you say that, we just had a change of government in australia and the first thing the liberals did was disband the Climate Change Commission! The climate change commission was set up a few years back to keep people informed on climate change and look for ways to make small changes to how we consume energy.
Money will always be put first. Environmental issues are not their concern.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
our population is not the problem....our consumerism is! We want so much stuff that industry has a reason to keep depleting the resources to make 'stuff' that we want to buy.
Consumerism is killing us, not children.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
The funny thing i've noticed about this debate amongst people I know is that the people who are militant about climate change and insist we're all monsters don't live much differently to those of us who accept that money drives all and that we cannot 'afford' to change.
Rather hypocritical. For all the propaganda i've read and heard a lot of people like the idea of being seen as climate sensitive without actually knowing what to do about it.
Rather hypocritical. For all the propaganda i've read and heard a lot of people like the idea of being seen as climate sensitive without actually knowing what to do about it.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
We're an economy driven by coal and now coal seam gas. What do you expect?!!!!!
It is nonsense to claim there is no relationship between consumption and population. Environmental impact = population x consumption. Failing to consider population indicates a failure to seriously address the issue.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Agreed. Consumerism is also assisted through population concentration.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
I expect that we need to change our dependency on such things and turn to cleaner renewable energy sources such as solar.
Investment in renewable energy, not dirty cheap energy sources.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
I think people are failing to consider that geographical location is part of the over-population myth
We can't all cram into one little spot on the map....there is more unpopulated land available then whats already populated, we just dont have access to it.
If you think that overpopulation is a "myth" - as in false - you're simply ignorant, no offense. All species are limited by the carrying capacity of the environment. Without exception. It is sheer ecological ignorance to think any species can grow exponentially and not run itself into a wall.
It's not a density issue, it's a resources issue. It doesn't matter where the population is located with respect to this issue, it's about how many resources it takes to sustain that population. Dense cities exist only because transportation allows for it: it allows movement of resources to the populations that need them. Spreading out the population will not solve the issue. That "unpopulated" land you're talking about? That's what's sustaining the current population. And it's not really doing a good job, as there are already problems with the resource-to-population elements. It would be doing a significantly worse job if we chewed up more of our farmland for parking lots and suburbs. Never mind the rights of the non-human world to exist. What, are we going to continue screwing them over to compensate for our gluttony?