ScienceDebate 2008

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

My position, however unencumbered with hard science, is that no matter what- whether we're actually influencing the global environment in any way or not, in any shape or form, we have got to stop littering in the ocean.  It is at the very least an insult to life itself.  We ought not be shitting where life presumably began.

QFT

Reminded me of something I wrote after "Live Earth"



   

Save Our Earth?

Live Earth has ended and lots of people watched concert performances to Save Our Planet. I'm not sure how watching Red Hot Chili Peppers will reduce greenhouse gases, but maybe I'm missing the point. After all, the performers did give several shout outs to good old Momma Earth and I'm sure she appreciated the props. Perhaps after they finished their sets, they went back to their bio-diesel powered private jets and home to their self-sustaining earthships... or their multi million dollar mansions filled with energy wasting products (maybe thats not fair and they actually use the little curly light bulbs... I shouldn't assume that they don't).

It did strike me that the motto of the movement may be incorrect in its statement. Save the Earth, sounds majestic, it sounds important, it sounds like something that the crew of the Enterprise would be tasked with. However, as far as I can tell, we're not "Saving the Earth", we're saving our habitat. I think the distinction is important. You see, out of all the physical objects we humans experience... the Earth and the Sun seem to be pretty safe. No matter what we do, the Earth and Sun apparently will continue on their merry cosmic dance until the lights come up and the bouncer starts collecting drinks. The Earth will be fine if we pump the environment full of toxins... we won't, but the Earth will. Hell, the Earth seemed fine in Waterworld, notwithstanding Costner's acting, and I don't see any scientist predicting that we'll have a global flood (besides, I saw a rainbow, so obviously that's impossible). In the reality of Human Beings the Earth is one of the most damned SAFE objects in existence.

However, to state the truth of the matter "Save our Habitat", perhaps evokes the wrong emotion. Save the Earth evokes excitement, its a challenge, its a cause. "Save our Habitat", on the other hand, perhaps evokes... shame. We, as a species, have a better understanding of cause and effect than the other fruits of the Taxonomic Tree. Yet, with the exception of some invasive species (and viruses) most of our fellow branches don't intentionally destroy their own habitat. Sure there may be cases of overpopulation or environmental changes (drought etc), but for the most part, species tend not to destroy that which is required for survival. Perhaps this is unintentional, perhaps it's evolutionary programming. Whatever it may be, we humans appear to have lost it. A number of 'conservatives' I've talked/debated/argued with seem to hold one of three opinions: 1) Global Warming is a Liberal Plot. 2) We humans are too insignificant to damage the Earth or 3) Global Warming is also occurring on Mars and therefore not our fault. As to the fact that we're spewing all sorts of compounds into the air that we need to breathe (global warming or not), they are concerned that it would hurt the economy for us to stop poisoning our habitat.

I would imagine that if we paid them to dump radioactive waste in their backyard, the economy wouldn't appear nearly as important.

So we have folks that don't seem to care about the habitat and others that preach about saving the environment. Yet, I haven't seen much actual useful changes come from most of the preachers (sorta like a lot of Christian preachers, big on words from the pulpit, not so much on actions). I saw a recent Global Warming rally and oddly, many of the people came in cars. Not electric cars or bio-diesel, but your average assortment of American and foreign cars... the sort I've seen at anti-war rallies and hippie festivals and in the parking lot outside of my office. The Cause,it seems, is popular, but the work required to effect change may be less. If you hate the Republicans because Bush is a douche and failed to sign the Kyoto Treaty, well good. However, if you aren't trying to save energy yourself... if you aren't using energy saving devices in your home, if you aren't using cold water when you can, if you aren't shutting down your electronic devices when not in use, if you aren't riding the bus, bicycle or your using your legs (at least when/where those options are feasible), then are you any better than any other American too drugged up on McDonalds and American Idol to care about their habitat?

That's what I asked myself. I haven't really tried saving energy, most of the lights in my house are incandescent. My car is an average vehicle with average gas mileage. I don't own a bicycle and the bus schedule would add an extra 3 hours to my work day. I'm sure that 'Gaia' doesn't care, but my grandchildren might. So, this journal entry is a reminder for me. What sort of human will I be? Will I contribute to the continued destruction of my habitat (through Global Warming or just poisoning the stuff I need to survive), or will I work to change my habits? Even if Al Gore is full of hot air, even if Global Warming is as scientific as Global Cooling was a few decades ago, spewing poisons into our environment can't be a positive thing.

[nurbldoff]

I tend to be careful around sensitive systems that I'm dependent on and which I don't know exactly how they work.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I tend to be careful around sensitive systems that I'm dependent on and which I don't know exactly how they work.

This is the correct solar powered motorcycle.

[Kai]

As Aldo Leopold put it:

"The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little is known about it. The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: 'What good is it?' If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

from A Sand County Almanac

[Jasper]

That's basically perfect.

[Kai]

That's basically perfect.

I always thought so. I've had a copy of A Sand County Almanac since high school.

[Iason Ouabache]

Bringing this back to the OP...  Nature also asked both candidates some science questions.  Obama answered, McCain didn't (but they cobbled together answers from his speeches anyways):

Part 1: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/455446a.html

Part 2: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080923/full/news.2008.1125.html