Earth Cancer or Progress

[Sage_Rat]

“Cancer. Wait no no, I meant progress!”

“You said ‘cancer’.”

“I meant progress. I really did.”

“Oh alright. You’re just lucky I’m Church of England.”

[florez]

@nachtmusick

People on Earth are indeed doomed to making things worse. Some few of us have the resources and the awareness to comprehend the snowballing tragedy, but we lack the will and the means to influence the vast momentum of human “progress.”

We cannot protect wildlife because we are wildlife. We are as much slaves to our biological imperatives as the creatures we aspire to protect.

Our first and foremost biological imperative is to procreate and prosper. But, the best way we can heal the Earth is to stop procreating and prospering. So the current answer to your question is no; as a species we don’t want to change our direction, and we don’t want to heal the Earth.

“But that is foolishness,” you cry. Yes, but can you imagine any politician or leader in any circumstance getting elected or approved on a platform of less population and less prosperity? They couldn’t sell that based on direct human benefit, much less the abstract value of the biosphere.

I think this actually makes the most sense, hopeless though it may be.

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

We take ourselves far too seriously as far as “damaging the earth”, we really do.

No matter what we do to the planet, all we’ll do is change the ecosystem temporarily. Maybe so much that we can’t survive in the new ecosystem, but the world will keep on spinning. And in 200 million years, what with erosion, weathering, and subduction of the tectonic plates, the whole damn planet will have pretty much shaken off any effects.

I’m not worried for the planet.

[Bryan_Ekers]

This thread is recreational confusion.

[florez]

@Bryan_Ekers

This thread is recreational confusion.

I never started the thread with the intention of pushing an agenda, in fact it is the first thread I have ever started on any message board, and I did not expect it to end up in the debates forum. This could account for the noted confusion.
I did want to see different perspectives, as my friend -who sent me the story ,is a hard core activist and would throw herself into a volcano, if she thought it would do any good to stop the “progress”.
Her thread would ,no doubt, get blood to boil, no confusion there. But I am a realist, and just came to learn.

[Blake]

OK, so some people have to move because of new infrastructure.

Can you explain why I should be more upset by this than by the people in New York who have to move because their apartments are being torn down for a new Mall? Or the people in South Africa who have to move because of a new diamond mine? Or the people in Switzerland who have to move because of a new airport?

Tens of thousands of people are displaced every day because of new infrastructure projects? Can you explain why this one is special? Can you tell us why the reaction of an Indian chief is more “noble” than the reaction of an 80 yo Afrikaner grandmother, or the reaction of a 26 yo Swiss Somalian refugee.

Why did you pick this relocation out of the millions that have occurred over the past decade?

@florez

400,000 hectares of forest. More than 40,000 Indians will have to find another place to live.

:eek:

400, 000 hectares, and >40, 000 Indians will be displaced. That’s more than one Indian per 10 hectares, or 10 people/km^2. The population density of Medieval Europe was about was only one 20 people/km^2, and that is taking into account the numerous towns and cities.

And we are talking here about rainforest soils in Brazil, which are not noted for their high fertility.

So we are left with two possibilities:

1. The information is unreliable and untrustworthy and should be disregarded.

2. This area isn’t the pristine, forested wilderness inhabited by traditional Indians that you are trying to portray it as. It is a densely settled regions, almost entirely cleared for agricultural fields, with small villages every 10 km or so and larger cities every 200 km or so, and only tiny remnants of forest.

Can you tell us which you think it might be?

Is the population density really 10 Indians/km^2, equivalent to Northern Germany in the Middle ages and thus not “natural habitat” by any possible definition?

Or is the article so unreliable that it can’t get basic facts straight?

[florez]

[quote=“Blake, post:26, topic:611845”]

OK, so some people have to move because of new infrastructure.

Can you explain why I should be more upset by this than by the people in New York who have to move because their apartments are being torn down for a new Mall? Or the people in South Africa who have to move because of a new diamond mine? Or the people in Switzerland who have to move because of a new airport?

Tens of thousands of people are displaced every day because of new infrastructure projects? Can you explain why this one is special? Can you tell us why the reaction of an Indian chief is more “noble” than the reaction of an 80 yo Afrikaner grandmother, or the reaction of a 26 yo Swiss Somalian refugee.

Why did you pick this relocation out of the millions that have occurred over the past decade?

Did I say you should be more upset at the suffering of one people over another in the way of progress? Did I claim that this particular Chief was more noble than another in such circumstances? Why would I want competitive sufferings to be a point here?
My question had to do with the direction of progress, inevitability or alternatives? Of course endless examples are out there, and you can pick apart the numbers if you like, but I do not believe you are questioning that this is how we roll.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@florez

While newspapers and television talk about the lives of celebrities, ..

Not a big fan of celebrity crap, while I’m in general a supporter of progress, civilization, globalization, and capitalism I think in many the healthy folk culture and high culture has been killed both by mindless mass pop culture and the meaningless crap that modern art is.

.the chief of the Kayapo tribe received the worst news of his life: Dilma, 'The new president of Brazil, has given approval to build a huge hydroelectric plant (the third largest in the world).

Providing energy to hundreds of thousands if not millions of Brazilian citizens.

It is the death sentence for all the people near the river because the dam will flood 400,000 hectares of forest. More than 40,000 Indians will have to find another place to live. The natural habitat destruction, deforestation and the disappearance of many species is a fact. ’

Moving=/= death sentence? Have you not heard of the concept of eminent domain?

What moves me in my very bowels , making me ashamed of being part of Western culture, is the reaction of the chief of the Kayapo community when he learned of the decision—his gesture of dignity and helplessness before the advance of capitalist progress, modern predatory civilization that does not respect the differences …

Yeah I’m not a big fan of cannibalism or human sacrifice, and I’d like to see every human being on Earth having a decent standard of living.

My friend just sent me this story by Stewart Vriesinga and translated from Spanish by Gonzalo Cesar
It made me wonder about people on the earth, and if we are just doomed to making things worse.
Is it too late to change the direction of so called “progress”? Do we even want to? and if it were possible to heal the earth, what would be the best way to go about doing it?

If not for progress and civilization we’d all be stone age cavemen in the forest or bush. It is due to this that most infants live to see adulthood, most people live to see grey hair and grandchildren, that women no longer die horribly in childbirth, that backbreaking labour is no longer the lot of almost all men and women, that people know about and can go around all the world, that people have a say in how they are governed, that people have access to unlimited information, that people can hope that their children’s and grandchildren’s lives will not be more of the same? Would you give up all these things to make a philosophical point?

[Acsenray]

@Qadgop_the_Mercotan

We take ourselves far too seriously as far as “damaging the earth”, we really do.

No matter what we do to the planet, all we’ll do is change the ecosystem temporarily. Maybe so much that we can’t survive in the new ecosystem, but the world will keep on spinning. And in 200 million years, what with erosion, weathering, and subduction of the tectonic plates, the whole damn planet will have pretty much shaken off any effects.

I’m not worried for the planet.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. It’s not the planet that’s in danger. It’s just us. Once we drive ourselves to extinction, the planet will do just fine without us.

@florez

I never started the thread with the intention of pushing an agenda, in fact it is the first thread I have ever started on any message board, and I did not expect it to end up in the debates forum. This could account for the noted confusion.
I did want to see different perspectives, as my friend -who sent me the story ,is a hard core activist and would throw herself into a volcano, if she thought it would do any good to stop the “progress”.
Her thread would ,no doubt, get blood to boil, no confusion there. But I am a realist, and just came to learn.

Did you want perspectives or not? If you want perspectives, you have to offer sufficient information in the OP so people understand what you’re talking about. The source of the confusion is not your intent, but your failure to communicate clearly.

[florez]

Will this sad chief’s situation have a happy ending? Of course not. Will it happen again, and many times over, and become meaningless in the course of all time? Sure it will. And will I ever post another thread? Only if I can fully connect with the issue, because I communicate better if I have a purpose, and to be honest my purpose was to get some distance from the emotional appeal of my friend’s story. She has outrage and tears, but I had some problem going there with her, as it made no logical sense, and I hate having my heart tugged at like that, even by dear friends. I agree that the planet would do fine without any two legged humans on board, so even if my communicating was a failure, I still got something from your posts. I can feel bad about the state of things and wonder will it ever be different, or how it could be different, but I better get my ducks in a row before posting about it.

[Blake]

@florez

Did I say you should be more upset at the suffering of one people over another in the way of progress?

Since you apparently don’t think that this event is at all noteworthy, then why did you post a story about it?

I am confused and have no idea what point you are trying to make or what you wish to discuss. Maybe you could clarify?

Did I claim that this particular Chief was more noble than another in such circumstances?

Since you apparently do not think that his reaction was at all noteworthy, then why did you post a commentary about how moving and dignified it was?

I am confused and have no idea what point you are trying to make or what you wish to discuss. Maybe you could clarify?

Why would I want competitive sufferings to be a point here?

I am confused and have no idea what you want, what point you are trying to make or what you wish to discuss. Maybe you could clarify? Since you apparently do not think that this suffering is at all noteworthy, why did you post a story about it?

My question had to do with the direction of progress, inevitability or alternatives?

Is that a question or a statement? I am confused and have no idea what point you are trying to make or what you wish to discuss. Maybe you could clarify?

If you are interested in discussing the direction of progress, then why did you post a story about an event which you believe is not at all noteworthy or peculiar to recent times and thus not in any way indicative of progressive change?

If you are asking a question, then I have to say that you probably are not.

Of course endless examples are out there, and you can pick apart the numbers if you like, but I do not believe you are questioning that this is how we roll.

I have no idea at all what that means. Seriously.

If you do not believe that the story is at all credible in the claims it makes, then why did you post it?

I am utterly mystified about what point you are trying to make or what position you have adopted or what it is that you wish to discuss. And I am not the only one.

Perhaps, rather than posting dismissive posts with minimal content, you cna cease playing coy and simply write down a few basic points. You can start with the following:

1. Why did you post this story? What do you think that we might gain from reading it?

2. What do you believe WRT this story. Do you believe it even happened as described? Do you believe it involved 400, 00 ha of forest? Do you believe it involves 40, 000 Indians? Do you believe the Indians are going to die?

3. What is your reaction to this story? Does it cause an emotional reaction? If so, what? Does it provoke intellectual inspection? If so what, and what conclusions did you reach?

4. Assuming you think the story has any credibility at all, do you think the events described are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, and why?

Because at this stage I honestly have no idea what your response is likely to be to any of those questions.