SCI/TECH: Satellite Photos Show Thirty Years of Environmental Destruction

Looks to me like a growing Cancer that is Eathing up the Healthy Tissue away - FAST.

What will Mother Nature do in the Answer?

I guess we will have to wait and see....

Originally posted by Souljah
What will Mother Nature do in the Answer?

I guess we will have to wait and see....

\

Maybe we've already begun to see....

These are meaningless photos. Cities have grown in 30 years! Oh No! I'm suprized I didn't see W blamed some how. It's noteworthy there were no American cities shown yet of course everything that is bad that happens in the world is out fault and should be paid for by our tax dollars.
Humans are biological entities just like any other. We have byproducts to our existance. However we are the only species that has been able to adjust our byproducts to improve our life. No mention of the breaking technology that has cleaned up the byproducts of the human existance in the last 50 years. I guess no one remember what cities like Allentown and Gary USED to look like.
99% of environmentalism is a joke. It's anarchist hiding their true colors. I guess it's easy for simple minds to buy in to.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall anyone saying we were incapable of cleaning up our own messes. We certainly have learned to do a lot in that area and we have made accomplishments. The problem isn't our wastes (though we do need to do a lot more there) it's our numbers. Most western civilizations have already dropped down to near the bare replacement level of their populations; however, so-called second & third world countries have not and I really don't forsee them doing so in the near future. Personally I don't see the problem as an environmental problem, or an educational problem as much as I see it as an economic problem. Poor countries have to depend on the labor of individuals far more that the rich countries do, therefore they have more children so that more members of the family can bring in more income and thus provide more security for all of them and I can't fault them for that thinking--we thought that way in the past as most other wealthy nations did. Now, we live in a country where over 99% of all labor is done by machines and we don't have to raise large families to be successful.

I don't see any easy answers. All the folks in the poor countries want is the same as we want. The problem is there is simply not enough wealth to permit that to happen. Of course wealthy countries like the U.S. and Canada, and the European countries, etc. could voluntarily give up some of their wealth to the poor countries, but that prospect has about as much chance as a snowball in Hell. So what do we do?

If we continue to simply ignore the problem then populations will continue to increase precisely in those areas that can least afford it. At some critical population density things will definitely turn ugly. We know how that ugliness manifests itself in wild animal populations--animals start to starve, get sick, fight amongst themselves, and die off until the population drops below the unsustainable level. We don't have any real experience concerning overpopulation problems amongst humans, but we have done studies and those studies, for the most part, say we'll go the same way. Is that what we want to happen? I don't hardly think so.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

I'm curious, why does everything, no matter what the topic turn into an argument on ATS?

And people wonder why humans can't get along...

I doubt it's just ATS Flinx.

Conservative Environmentalism

I personnally believe governments and weapons manufacturers will team up to do the population control... whether it is a concious decision or not,... you protect the environment and you make money doing it... Hey Cheney what do you think? I mean the mere presence of the US military is enough to have arabs blowing eachother up... Israel was a really good idea too in that sense (well it's arabs bombing jews, but hey it's people killing people=good population control)... and come on the US has been a totalitarian militarist state for a long time... it's already started an ethnic cleansing of sorts (War on Terror)...

Oh yeah and those third world countries... the stuff people were talking about in this thread on the population regulating itself... There are massacres continuing in many african states funded by the continents raw materials (from precious stones to nuclear material) which the west buys... These tribal wars happan thanks to the establishment of bad borders through colonization and lack of infrastructure as a result... but the west gets their money back when those states buy marked up Cold War junk to perform genocide. These killers are usually trained by military "consultants" which are ex-GIs from the west who enjoy killing and getting paid for it...

so to think that developed countries aren't responsible for the faults of the third world is like saying a crackhead mother who recives a fat welfare check isn't responsible for the actions of her five delinquint pre-teen offspring who just set fire to a school and killed/injured hundreds of innocent people/chidren.

After the apocalypse the new revolutionaries will create a Socialist world government WITHOUT a military. Only then will a true utopia be realized.
But it won't be because the military-industrial complex is the devil and the devil is the backbone of world politics and economics, and filthy rich white guys know how to save their own asses.

And to all the people that think the US is an insensitive cancer destroying the planet I bring you good news from GM... THE H3 Hummer...


[edit on 7-6-2005 by OYG]

Perhaps a better way for some of us to look at this issue is to scale it down a bit. Take a look at your local area, and see what sort of problems mankind has caused on a local level.

For instance, I live in Baltimore, MD, USA. 150 years ago, this land was virtually pristine. The city was small, the harbor and bay was unpolluted. This is because it was still only a small, low population, developing city at the time. All of the lands to the North of the city (now the north-central portion of the city) were vineyards. 100 years ago, Baltimore was a cesspool. Sanitation was terrible. Raw sewage ran through the streets, and directly into the harbor. The city was becoming overcrowded. 50 years ago, the city started to get cleaned up a bit. Sanitation finally caught up to the needs of the population, and new laws had been put in place to keep the city cleaner. However, this sanitation system moved all of the sewage into Back River (a body of water just East of Baltimore). Back River quickly lost all of its wildlife, became horribly polluted, and considering that it's a feeder for the Chesapeake Bay, caused serious pollution problems within the Bay. The Rockfish, Blue Heron, and Bald Eagle became endangered, the shipping channels began to fill up with sewage sludge, etc. Currently, because of an ongoing "Save the Bay" project which has had some success, the Rockfish is no longer endangered. The Blue Heron is slowly making a comeback. The Bald Eagle is still endangered, and greatly suffering from the pollution. Back River is still host to the sewage plant, and as such still has a vile smell to it, and is still full of pollutants. The Inner Harbor has more fuel and oil spills now than ever before, because of the amount of commercial and private boats coming in and out of there. Our parklands surrounding the city are becoming less protected as the need for more houses grows. Baltimore has connected with DC as a single urban area (the entire Interstate 95 corridor between Baltimore and DC is now shown as yellow "urban" area on most maps). Pollution is still a massive problem. Virtually nowhere in Baltimore can you not smell some sort of industrial plant. The Inner Harbor often has a rainbow sheen to it, indicative of fuel and oil spills, and countless dead fish float along the docks.

Humans have destroyed this ecosystem. This is only one of many thousands that humans have destroyed. The enviornmental efforts to save the ecosytem are really too little, too late. Fact is, the only way to clean it up now, is for humans to abandon it, and let mother nature take over. And we all know that's not going to happen.

Now, if you have a hard time grasping this global concept, take the time to look locally, and see how human overpopulation has harmed the ecosystem in your area as well.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
All the folks in the poor countries want is the same as we want. The problem is there is simply not enough wealth to permit that to happen. Of course wealthy countries like the U.S. and Canada, and the European countries, etc. could voluntarily give up some of their wealth to the poor countries, but that prospect has about as much chance as a snowball in Hell. So what do we do?

Bingo, you make some valid points my friend. However, the idea that there is just a set amount of wealth and if some have it, others cannot is a fabrication of those who love scare tactics to keep the rest of us in line. The reason we are seeing so much poverty and thusly over-population not to mention destruction of the natural environment is because too many people are not properly educated on the reality of living in a country like Africa or some other thrid world country.

The idea of preserving their culture is actually promoting over population, starvation, and further harm to the environment. The hypocrisy of bitching about automobile exhaust while they release more CO2 in a day than the US does in a year by burning thousands upon thousands of acres of forest is an example. I know the environemtal left wants to stop the burning but in the same breath, they refuse to allow the culture to be trained and educated in agricuture and industry. If all they have is pain, suffering, and starvation, tell me, what the hell are we trying to preserve about that?

The whole idea of preserving anything in nature is stupid because nature and the environment is ever changing and always has been. Native Americans would raz and burn entire forests to allow new growth and had done it for thousands of years. None of America's forests are as old as they would want you to believe.

Lets take the US for example. More forested land now than we had 100 years ago. Only about 5% of the country developed for human occupation. Why, because we became educated and learned how to aquire wealth, stopped having dozens of kids per family and became obsessed with correcting the environmental issues we created while getting here. Why do the African tribes not obsess over their environment? Maybe its because they are distracted by desease and hunger? Those are pretty big distractions. Until they remedy those, I'd look for the population to skyrocket because when all you can do is have kids, thats all you will do. I'd also look for the devestation of their environment to continue. All we have to do is really simple. We have to stop making decisions for them while dining in our fine restaurants. We have to allow them to enter into civilization.

It continues to amaze me that posters refer to these images as scare tactics. Maybe this photo album is a ploy by the UN to divert attention from Kofi & Co. and the OfF scandal. Fear is subjective. It can't be caused without cooperation. If you find the pictures scary, its because you have reason to.

My own passion regarding this issue (not the images) is alarming. I've become antagonistic about it, which is wrong. Until we can all come to an agreement (not the Kyoto protocol) about how to deal with the on-going causative factors of global environmental destruction, we are going to fight it out over dwindling, mis-managed resources in an ever increasing pile of our own poop.

We need to bring together the best tenets of 'capitalism' and 'socialism' to somehow create an enlightened global resource allocation system that takes into account the welfare of the common person and the environment as well as corporate profits and continuing research into vital, sustainative technologies. That's an NWO with a conscience or something, I guess.

I know I have my head in the clouds right now, but it seems like the only viable alternative to a huge die off and major step backward for 90%+ of humanity. We can't keep crapping in our messkit forever while the few get rich off it, and the many suffer for it.




[edit on 7-6-2005 by Icarus Rising]

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

We need to bring together the best tenets of 'capitalism' and 'socialism' to somehow create an enlightened global resource allocation system that takes into account the welfare of the common person and the environment as well as corporate profits and continuing research into vital, sustainative technologies. That's an NWO with a conscience or something, I guess.


[edit on 7-6-2005 by Icarus Rising]

..and thats great and enlightened thinking..but until we can elevate those cultures which have no incentive to curb population growth to that same level, we are just spinning our wheels ....unless we are talking about making decisions for others because we somehow feel more righteous?

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

My own passion regarding this issue (not the images) is alarming. I've become antagonistic about it, which is wrong. Until we can all come to an agreement (not the Kyoto protocol) about how to deal with the on-going causative factors of global environmental destruction, we are going to fight it out over dwindling, mis-managed resources in an ever increasing pile of our own poop.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Icarus Rising]

Well said Icarus. I wish I were that eloquent.

It's heartening to see the thoughtful turn this thread has taken. Hopefully our elected representatives and those of other countries will do the same and finally grope their way towards some consensus we can all live with.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

I completely agree that the eco-benefits of advanced technology need to be disseminated as quickly as possible to undeveloped and rapidly developing cultures/countries and guidance offered in the implementation of enviro-sensitive growth policies in an attempt to avoid further damage caused by the industrialization process. How to accomplish this when all those cultures/countries seem to want for the most part is guns and bombs for border wars and ethnic battles is something that needs to become a focus point.

It is hard for me to believe that this problem will fix itself, as the MIT report suggests, short of, as I said, a major die off. The concept of MAD helped hold the stalemate during the Cold War. Maybe the same thing, seen in a new light, can help us overcome our differences and protect what sustains us all.

Here is an excellant website that seems to fit in with this thread. A Pro-Tech Environmentalist blog. Check it out and check out the Archives!

www.worldchanging.com...

Lot's of interesting stuff in their.

Human beings pride themselves on being the most intelligent species on this planet and I suppose we really are. Stop reading for a second and just think of all the things humans have learned to do over the centuries--it's quite an amazing list isn't it. Now stop again and think of all the things we haven't learned to do. Probably if you thought of anything it had to do with science & technology or medicine. But there are a lot of other things we haven't learned to do, or at least not do very well. For example, we really haven't learned to get along with one another. We are continually fighting amongst ourselves over the silliest damn things that seem Oh! so important at the time. Ever ask yourself what drives us to do that? Is it the leaders we pick? Is it greed? Is it that we are basically lazy and don't bother to think for ourselves? Are we simply stupid? Take the crusades, for example. Why did we do that? In the light of history it was just plain dumb. Yet untold thousands of our young men died because, at the time, we thought it was what GOD or ALLAH would want us to do. Or take the American Civil War, Why did we do that? (Here I'm sure countless readers can cite dozens of reasons why it was necessary to fight.) It was one of the bloodiest wars in history, hundreds of thousands of our young men died in that one. I could go on and on, covering every conflict through history, but the real point I'm trying to get at is simply this: Why didn't we simply talk our way around those conflicts? We're good at talking, We can understand reason and logic, We're intelligent--right(?). Just what is it in our makeup that causes our emotions (passions if you will) to rise and shuts down our ability to negotiate and compromise--at least temporarily? Is it the same thing that lets us see beauty in a flower or a poem, or a book, or a song .....? Are emotions so strong we just can't resist them? Why do we do these things, why do we continuously foul our own nest when we know better? Why are we, at least most of the time, apathetic to the plight of others?

I'm not asking these things as rhetorical questions. I really don't know the answers and would very much like to. Surely, there are people who jointly know the answers to these questions. Let's find these people and put them in charge and do what they say. We really, really won't like doing a lot of the things they say. We'll bitch and moan and whine and resist and threaten and mayby even fight, but we'll know deep down inside that they're right, so we won't resist to much or fight to hard. If we are truely intelligent we should be able to identify and select people who can lead us out of this mess and then trust those people to do exactly that. They won't be miracle workers, they'll be people and they'll make mistakes, but fewer mistakes than we would have made without them. We'll just have to forgive them from time to time.

[edit on 8-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 8-6-2005 by Astronomer68]