DMD 0.175 release -- CO2

[John Reimer]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:42:07 -0800, Carlos Santander  
<csantander619 at gmail.com> wrote:

> John Reimer escribió:
>>   Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?   
>> Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage  
>> growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?
>>  Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons  
>> alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any  
>> faster than disease, war, and bad health habits.
>>  -JJR
>
> I don't know for sure how everything affects everything else, but I  
> think that even the slightest changes can alter the world in ways that  
> can't really predict. And it won't only affect human beings, but also  
> plants and animals. But everything is ultimately related, so I don't  
> think it's that easy to just "more trees, great!" That's why I think we  
> should try to disturb nature as few as possible, just because we don't  
> know.
>


What constitutes a disturbance of nature?  What defines nature?  Is nature  
something that excludes all human activity? Why?

Of course, nothing is so simple.  But if CO2 emmission is a central  
problem of greenhouse gases (greenhouses are for growing things, remember  
:) ), then the questions need to be answered, especially since all those  
plants provide us with the O2 we breath.  But apparently nobody really  
knows the answer because there are too many variables in the whole system  
to take into account? Meanwhile, we do know that sunlight, water, heat,  
and CO2 cause plants to grow readily.  More plants mean more water  
containment as well. Animals eat plants for survival.  And humans use  
animals and plants as further resources. It goes on.

In regard to global warming, the current predictions are of some sort of  
cataclysmic eventuality that humans are generating as result of CO2  
production; isn't it more likely that some cataclysmic event will occur  
external to the system (solar or meteor related) than what's initiated by  
man's apparent CO2 contribution? If nature is unpredictable, and we are  
part of nature, what comparative portion of CO2 emissions do we contribute  
compared to the other parts of nature?  Are not those emissions "bad" also?

Do forest fires (which occur regularly in many parts of the world)  
constitute "bad" sources of co2?  Are these fires only "bad" sources if  
set off by man?  Are they "good" and normal if set off by lightning  
because that seems more natural?  Is man part of nature?  Nature disturbs  
itself all the time.  So how do we make moral decisions on what is really  
bad?  Where does the moral order of "bad" and "good" come from anyway?   
What are the influences of these "natural" disruptions on this nature that  
we consider so fragile?

Of course, all of the questions have little meaning beyond a concrete  
motivational framework.  We need concrete reasons to be stewards of this  
earth, not abstract unknowns and ambiguous interpretations/predictions of  
future events.

What is the motivation for avoiding pollution of the earth and  
environment?  Primary motives will simply be that of conservation of life  
and resources for the purpose of existance (beyond any worldview-related  
obligation).  It's within the human's best interests to protect their  
environment to the best of their ability if they want to preserve their  
state of being. Once again, though, concrete reasons for environmental  
management (even though this might constitute environmental interferance!)  
serve a stronger motive than those debatable reasons related to  
green-house gases.  If we make decisions on predictions of unknowns, we  
very well may be doing worse for ourselves and the environment and wasting  
tons of money in the process (something politicians are very good at).  If  
we make decisions based on known destructive tendancies of pollutive  
emissions, than I think we have solid evidence for policy making.

In summary, saying that greenhouse gases are "bad" because of an  
unpredictable affects on fragile ecosystems is no more helpful than saying  
we can fix the world by plugging volcanoes with corks or by installing  
giant lightning rods in forests.  Nature itself is unpredictable, produces  
massive amounts green-house gases /unpredictably/ through many "natural"  
sources, and destroys and regenerates itself cyclicly. Let the scientists  
debate it all they want and plot their graphs of variable reliability  
concerning past changes.  I think people need to stop depending on them  
for making moral decisions: their "right" and "wrong" are mercurial. There  
are better reasons to look after the world we live in.

-JJR