Who is going to win the war to save the planet?

[Silverscale derg]

I guess we can all agree the earth is in great danger and since all forms of life depend on the planet, the future of humankind and millions of other species is in danger too. The list of threats is long and well known:

- Global Climate change
- Pandemics
- Over consumption of the earth’s resources by a growing population
- Pollution
- Deforestation
- Oceanic dead zones and overfishing
- Wars
- Etc, ect, etc…

In 2016 Stephen Hawking said that we are living through the most dangerous time in the history of the human race (This is the most dangerous time for our planet | Stephen Hawking). There is one particular sentence that stands out for me “We now have the technology to destroy the planet on which we live, but have not yet developed the ability to escape it.”

More recently, in August this year Pope Francis as said that our common home is at risk “The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home, Sister and Mother Earth.” Independently of any religious belief, I think he’s right. Here’s the full article in case anyone is interested - Pope Francis on the Dangers Facing Mother Earth.

We have lost a number of battles but the war is not yet lost. Some still have the hope that humans will find ways to fix these problems and set things on the right track. That solution will, for those who still have faith in human kind, be provided mostly by technology. It is true that things are advancing in a lot of areas but are they advancing fast and far enough? Will the technological advancements necessary to save the earth arrive on time? And if they do, can technology alone do it?

Can the outcome be positive without a radical change in human mentality and behavior and what are the odds of people accepting to stop all forms of corruption and live with less in order to save the planet?
I don’t want to be negative but knowing what I know about humans, I don’t trust our species to do the right thing. What is your take on this?

After humans have gone away by killing themselves off, we dragons will flood earth which we have made and salvage it, clean the air, clean the water. Without humans wildlife will be great such as Chernobyl. It's radioactive yes but the plants seem to be growing quite well, the wildlife there is good too.

It's inevitable that humankind will destroy itself for humans are their own worst enemies. All the creature's who's life was taken will slowly be put back to earth too after they're gone. The thought of them being killed yet again just for a hunter to skin them and throw them out without eating them is disrespectful especially with the pain of death they had to go through

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I guess we can all agree the earth is in great danger and since all forms of life depend on the planet, the future of humankind and millions of other species is in danger too. The list of threats is long and well known:

In 2016 Stephen Hawking said that we are living through the most dangerous time in the history of the human race (This is the most dangerous time for our planet | Stephen Hawking). There is one particular sentence that stands out for me “We now have the technology to destroy the planet on which we live, but have not yet developed the ability to escape it.”

More recently, in August this year Pope Francis as said that our common home is at risk “The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home, Sister and Mother Earth.” Independently of any religious belief, I think he’s right. Here’s the full article in case anyone is interested - Pope Francis on the Dangers Facing Mother Earth.

We have lost a number of battles but the war is not yet lost. Some still have the hope that humans will find ways to fix these problems and set things on the right track. That solution will, for those who still have faith in human kind, be provided mostly by technology. It is true that things are advancing in a lot of areas but are they advancing fast and far enough? Will the technological advancements necessary to save the earth arrive on time? And if they do, can technology alone do it?

Can the outcome be positive without a radical change in human mentality and behavior and what are the odds of people accepting to stop all forms of corruption and live with less in order to save the planet?
I don’t want to be negative but knowing what I know about humans, I don’t trust our species to do the right thing. What is your take on this?

I was about to say you sound like a JW till I read your header..

Not intended as derogatory, I know a few and really like them, but I think they worry too much.. these fears are mostly as old as civilization, they are always manipulated by the powerful to extract 'sacrifices' from people

The biggest natural threat right now is probably the next imminent ice age, anything we can do to delay that is a good thing, but we'll need something a whole lot more potent than a couple extra molecules CO2 in 10000 of air-

politically, socialist states have wiped out staggering amounts of people and wealth and progress in a tiny space of recent history, North Korea is still a real threat- but there could be others- it's the same cause of almost every major conflict in recent history, so I don't think we can let our guard down there...

but most of our problems today pale in comparison to a few hundred years ago do they not?

 

[Vee]

but most of our problems today pale in comparison to a few hundred years ago do they not?

The problems a few hundred years ago were different from the ones today. Some things were much worse, others were better. In general, many things improved. But this is the first time in human history that the planet we depend on is in danger. Our species cannot survive without the resources the earth provides, the same resources we are destroying.

 

[metis]

politically, socialist states have wiped out staggering amounts of people and wealth and progress in a tiny space of recent history,

Some have, and also some capitalist states have also done this as well. Which country dropped two atomic bombs that killed many thousands of people, the most of which were civilians?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some have, and also some capitalist states have also done this as well. Which country dropped two atomic bombs that killed many thousands of people, the most of which were civilians?

If you'd studied history, you'd find that those bombs ended a long & deadly war, thereby preventing
an even greater loss of life, especially on our side. (And yes, it is better to place more value on our
soldiers' lives than theirs.) Sure, sure, we used deadly weapons to kill a great many of Tojo's &
Hitler's people. It was a difficult war, but I say it was worth winning as quickly as possible.

The useful thing to do is avoid another such war.
This beats hand wringing about how we conquered evil in WW2.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The problems a few hundred years ago were different from the ones today. Some things were much worse, others were better. In general, many things improved. But this is the first time in human history that the planet we depend on is in danger. Our species cannot survive without the resources the earth provides, the same resources we are destroying.

what resources are we destroying?

 

[metis]

In regards to us dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, there was another very viable option, namely to continue our blockade of Japan, which already had very little oil left, plus most of their heavy industry and much of the light industry had already been destroyed. Their navy and air force were almost nonexistent, so American forces were only in a bit of danger at the very end.

With the waiting game, the burden as to what the do would have fallen on the Japanese leaders, and since they capitulated when the atomic bombs were dropped, there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't eventually do the same because of running out of pretty much everything and watching their society virtually collapse.

Yes, it would have taken longer, but it's hypothetically conceivable that little to no loss of American lives and quite possibly even far fewer Japanese lives would have been lost. Granted, there's literally no way of telling with any certainty that they would have given up quickly, but they knew the handwriting was on the wall, so if they dragged it all out, that would have been on them, not us.

BTW, if one read's Truman's memoirs, he was very reluctant to use the bombs but got talked into it by military leaders and some scientists, and one driving force was to see how these bombs would work when hitting civilian targets, which especially Hiroshima more was (Nagasaki had more heavy industry).

Also, this might come as a surprise to some, namely that a fair number of scientists actually were worried before the first bomb was tested in New Mexico that such a nuclear explosion could set off a nuclear reaction that might incinerate Earth. And yet we went ahead with the test anyway.

Countries that use atrocities always have excuses as to why they did it, so we were pretty much brainwashed by our own leaders to blindly assume that these bombs beings dropped would result in fewer lives lost. Don't believe this for one minute though as that's an assumption that's virtually impossible to verify and maybe even less realistic.

Now, whether it was moral for us to drop them is a question with a subjective set of answers. I know I couldn't have authorized if president, especially given the alternative, but there are many who would have. Dropping them defied the "just-war theory", especially since so many civilians were killed, and justifying dropping them because the Japanese were ruthless towards us still doesn't make it right, imo..

 

[Vee]

what resources are we destroying?

That's a long list. We pollute the air, the water and the soil where our food grows, we take down entire forests, we now have more plastic than fish in the oceans, 25 000 species are in risk of extinction, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's a long list. We pollute the air, the water and the soil where our food grows, we take down entire forests, we now have more plastic than fish in the oceans, 25 000 species are in risk of extinction, etc, etc, etc.

The air we breath is certainly cleaner than a city 100 years ago, we're not up to our knees in horse%$^$ food is fresh and clean and plentiful by virtue of automation, the industrial revolution,

, people don't throw their waste out of windows- you don't see these as improvements?

American Indians burned vast areas of forest to create a vast cattle ranch of millions of buffalo that trampled everything else and drove many species to extinction, probably the greatest man made environmental disaster ever, we have done much to repair that damage also

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, this might come as a surprise to some, namely that a fair number of scientists actually were worried before the first bomb was tested in New Mexico that such a nuclear explosion could set off a nuclear reaction that might incinerate Earth.....
And yet we went ahead with the test anyway.

One shouldn't make unsupported cavalier & historically inaccurate claims.
The question of an atmospheric fusion reaction was raised, & then found
to be not real. They determined this before beginning testing.
Ref....
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/bethe-teller-trinity-and-the-end-of-earth/
Excerpted from the article....
Bethe: '42. Oppenheimer [soon to be appointed head of Los Alamos Laboratory] got quite excited and said, "That's a terrible possibility," and he went to his superior, who was Arthur Compton, the director of the Chicago Laboratory, and told him that. Well, I sat down and looked at the problem, about whether two nitrogen nuclei could penetrate each other and make that nuclear reaction, and I found that it was just incredibly unlikely. And I said so, and I think Teller was very quickly convinced and so was Oppenheimer when he'd returned from seeing Compton. Later on we found out that it is very difficult to ignite deuterium by an atomic bomb, and liquid deuterium, which is much easier to ignite than the gas, but at the time in '42 we thought it might be very easy to ignite liquid deuterium. Well, Teller, I think he has to be much commended for that. Teller at Los Alamos put a very good calculator on this problem, [Emil] Konopinski, who was an expert on weak interactors, and Konopinski together with [inaudible] showed that it was incredibly impossible to set the hydrogen, to set the atmosphere on fire. They wrote one or two very good papers on it, and that put the question really at rest. They showed in great detail why it is impossible. But, of course, it spooked [Compton]. Well, let me first say one other thing: Fermi, of course, didn't believe that this was possible, but just to relieve the tension at the Los Alamos [Trinity] test [on July 16, 1945], he said, "Now, let's make a bet whether the atmosphere will be set on fire by this test." [laughter] And I think maybe a few people took that bet. But, for instance, in Compton's mind it was not set to rest. He didn't see my calculations. He even less saw Konopinski’s much better calculations, so it was still spooking in his mind when he gave an interview at some point, and so it got into the open literature, and people are still excited about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

In regards to us dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, there was another very viable option, namely to continue our blockade of Japan, which already had very little oil left, plus most of their heavy industry and much of the light industry had already been destroyed. Their navy and air force were almost nonexistent, so American forces were only in a bit of danger at the very end.

Your opinion of the military value of Hiroshima & Nagasaki is a novel one.
Planners of the day thought differently.
Ref...
Avalon Project - The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

An invasion of Japan would've cost many lives, & taken very long.
To not invade would've let Japan re-arm, blockades notwithstanding.
Nuking them ended the war, & there is much to be said for that, as
opposed to a lingering conflict with potential flare up.

 

[gnomon]

I'm not really one for the "save the planet" and "the planet is in danger" rhetoric. It's poor choice of wording that doesn't accurately reflect what is going on. The planet does not need saving, and it is not in danger. There is not some giant rogue planetoid on a collision course with earth that will result in the literal end of the world and earth being pulverized into space dust.

Are dramatic changes happening to global ecosystems and climate systems? Yes. Is this normal? Yes. Do humans consider it normal? There's the rub. Humans create norms in their heads - stories about how the world is "supposed" to be - then expect reality to conform to it. Except it never, ever does. Everything is always changing. If it changes in a direction we don't think it is "supposed" to (usually because we don't want it to) we scream: danger, bad, warning, apocalypse! It's an understandable self-centered response to events. Do I think it's disgusting that the legacy of my species will be a layer of garbage in the layers of rocks of this planet and an extinction line? Oh, absolutely. Disgusting is putting it mildly, really.

You are correct.

The planet is not in danger.

I guess we can all agree the earth is in great danger and since all forms of life depend on the planet, the future of humankind and millions of other species is in danger too. The list of threats is long and well known:

- Global Climate change
- Pandemics
- Over consumption of the earth’s resources by a growing population
- Pollution
- Deforestation
- Oceanic dead zones and overfishing
- Wars
- Etc, ect, etc…

In 2016 Stephen Hawking said that we are living through the most dangerous time in the history of the human race (This is the most dangerous time for our planet | Stephen Hawking). There is one particular sentence that stands out for me “We now have the technology to destroy the planet on which we live, but have not yet developed the ability to escape it.”

More recently, in August this year Pope Francis as said that our common home is at risk “The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home, Sister and Mother Earth.” Independently of any religious belief, I think he’s right. Here’s the full article in case anyone is interested - Pope Francis on the Dangers Facing Mother Earth.

We have lost a number of battles but the war is not yet lost. Some still have the hope that humans will find ways to fix these problems and set things on the right track. That solution will, for those who still have faith in human kind, be provided mostly by technology. It is true that things are advancing in a lot of areas but are they advancing fast and far enough? Will the technological advancements necessary to save the earth arrive on time? And if they do, can technology alone do it?

Can the outcome be positive without a radical change in human mentality and behavior and what are the odds of people accepting to stop all forms of corruption and live with less in order to save the planet?
I don’t want to be negative but knowing what I know about humans, I don’t trust our species to do the right thing. What is your take on this?

The planet will not die. It's not about saving the planet.

Rephrase the question.

It's about saving life, specifically human life, on this planet. The planet couldn't give a **** about life.

 

[Enoch07]

The danger is to us, not the planet nor life in general. Mass extinctions have happened before. The world has been much warmer before. Plastic eating bacteria have already evolved. It's we who will suffer and likely go extinct if we cause a mass extinction or change the world too much. If we ignore the problems, our suffering from natural and ecological instabilities will continue to increase until society attains a tipping point when clamor of change overwhelms inertial tendencies. What will happen then is any body's guess. I, personally believe that the story of humanity is far from done and we will emerge from the crisis, even if a lot of damage has occured.

"The rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I also am a steward. Did you not know?"
-Gandalf in LOTR

I agree with Sayak on most of his post, but I don't believe humans will ever be able to put aside the differences of each other to solve any of the world's real problems. Too many greedy power hungry people who would rather see the world burn than compromise.

 

[Vee]

Rephrase the question.

It's about saving life, specifically human life, on this planet. The planet couldn't give a **** about life.

True.

 

[gnomon]

True.

Than I'm wholly on board with you.

Though I should have stated life overrall. It's not just about human life because we will not be here if much of the rest of the biosphere disappears.

edit: Yes, I just contradicted myself prior, but I'm expanding.