Do you think we are going to destroy are planet with GLOBAL WARMING

OK well most of the question is in the title. But I have herd things like there wont be anymore snow in fifty years, the polar ice caps are being destroyed, the ozone is covered in holes and that ethanol is actually worse for the enviorment than gasoline because it produces more carbon emissions. And to go along with that question are we getting to smart ? A little to technologically advanced.

Picture of Do you think we are going to destroy are planet with GLOBAL WARMING
sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 42Next »
According to the IEDABIEDAB it would take more than just blowing away our atmosphere...
current.png
trebuchet039 years ago
Global warming completely aside... We're en route to destroy our viability on this planet. The planet will be just fine - it'll heal.. We might not be part of that healing equation though. The global population has EXPLODED. If easter island was any indication - that's a bad thing... On the subject of GW.... Does anyone really want to find out, first hand, the consequences? Replace GW with meteorite... Do you really want to know what happens when a meteor the size of Texas decides to move in? Or would you rather do everything in your power to avert that disaster?
The earth is not overcrowded. Try leaving the city and going to some place where you can't get a signal on your cell phone. You can walk for days without seeing any people. China and India each have over a billion people AND areas like that. Everyone on earth could swim or drown in Loch Ness at once! Can you even see it on a globe?
Cell phone service is not a metric for population ;) The fact that China and India have over a billion people AND have desolate areas is a perfect indication that one can not use that as a metric. Additionally, both China and India are having new food strains due to supply and new global demands. We have yet to hit the period where a population falls under traumatic fertility cut - but we're exponentially approaching that point... A few years ago, in the US, 1 farmer fed 121 people... Compared to 50 years ago - 1 farmer fed 4-10 people. This is greatly due to technology advancements, indicating that our current population support was engineered, not balanced. Again, we will eventually (and exponentially wrt time), reach a max production. Be that due resource availability (such as the ever lowering aquifer stores) or lack of tech. breakthrough. A resource consumption balance will be reached... We're either going to do it ourselves - or let mother nature do it for us... The latter option is more painful and involuntary :/
world_population.JPG
What I meant is that there is a lot of land with no people where no cellphone infrastructure has been needed. Therefore there is plenty of room and the planet's not full. There's no lack of water on this planet, especially in the ocean. I don't think there are enough people to eat all the fish. Desalinization, Waterstills, Aquaducts, ICE CAPS ... still thirsty? I think that the awful planned obsolescence junk (PC's , phones , cars) are finally getting recycled nowadays. Although it would be better if it lasted much longer so the billions of people could work on progressive things like going to Mars. If people are hungry they need food, and food is made of mostly CARBON, NITROGEN, HYDROGEN, and OXYGEN. Which of these is rare on this planet?
CARBON, NITROGEN, HYDROGEN, and OXYGEN.
Which of these is rare on this planet?

None of those are edible as food (but they are constituents of food)... Don't believe me? Try living on graphite for a month :p I'd love to see you tell that to the people of Niger - where their children literally die because the crop that can live on their land is millet (which lacks necessary nutrition for children). Why is their fertility rate so high(7.2/woman)? Because their child mortality rate is incredibly high (248/1K)...

There's no lack of water on this planet, especially in the ocean.
I don't think there are enough people to eat all the fish.
Desalinization, Waterstills, Aquaducts, ICE CAPS ... still thirsty?

Tell that to Australia and their three decade+ drought :p

Desalinization is an option, but it comes at a high energy cost. Especially if water needs to be pumped into the nation's interior.

What I meant is that there is a lot of land with no people
where no cellphone infrastructure has been needed.
Therefore there is plenty of room and the planet's not full.

Again, cell phone coverage is not a metric of the ability of a region of sustain a population. If easter island wasn't example worthy, imagine if we were to seal off New York City - there'd be cell phone coverage and a lack of food supply. Dense population requires regions with very little population for support (and no cell phone coverage :p).

18% (and falling) of the US' land is arable - it's foolish to think that this can support an infinite population. We're lucky to have that much - globally, about 3% (and falling) of the Earth is arable.
It's an interesting and peculiar 'fact' that fertility rate increases with mortality rate. I suppose that will guarantee 'overpopulation' inevitability! Forget about cell phones, I mean vacant land. Imagine "Burning Man" (instant city), but more permanent. In the wastelands, high creativity to eco-destruction ratio is needed for survival. On google earth, I see agriculture in the middle of the arabian desert. (If the land is bad, must need to make it good.) Got lots of "WORTHLESS" land? Grant it to me! Easter island suffered a sudden disaster. Work was quickly abandoned. If the work took too many people to live on the island, then the island has eroded away a lot since it was abandoned.
jtobako VIRON9 years ago
Where are you getting your statistics? Easter Island still has natives, and very little problem with erosion (you may be thinking of coral islands-Easter Island is volcanic).
Easter Island is a pretty well documented/researched site... Quick google search brought up a Mcgraw Hill (big textbook publisher) resource

Historical studies have shown that conditions on the island were once very different than they are now. Until about 1500 years ago, the island was covered with a lush subtropical forest and the soil was deep and fertile. Polynesian people apparently reached Easter Island about A.D. 400. Anthropological and linguistic evidence suggests they sailed from the Marquesas Islands 3500 kilometers to the northwest. Excavations of archeological sites show that the early settlers' diet consisted mainly of porpoises, land-nesting seabirds, and garden vegetables. Populations soared, reaching as much as 20,000 on an island only about 15 km across.

By A.D. 1400 the forest appears to have disappeared completely-cut down for firewood and to make houses, canoes, and rollers for transporting the enormous statues. Without a protective forest cover, soil washed off steep hillsides. Springs and streams dried up, while summer droughts made gardens less productive. All wild land birds became extinct and seabirds no longer nested on the island. Lacking wood to build new canoes, the people could no longer go offshore to fish. Statues carved at this time show sunken cheeks and visible ribs suggesting starvation.

I think you're right in saying that Easter Island doesn't have major erosion problems, currently... But currently there's not much of a population problem as there's only a handful of people compared to it's population high.
You can buy an acre of land in Idaho for $300. But water rights are quite a bit more expensive!
1-10 of 42Next »